On 12/13/2013 12:07 PM, Derek Martin wrote:
if your NFS server is built for it (i.e. it isn't just yet another desktop with a single local disk) you should easily be able to far exceed the performance of a workstation's cheap local disk.
Maybe because I was young and impressionable during the early personal computer era, it seems better to me to give users their own hardware rather than servers...unless there is a real economy of scale that kicks in for the server. Now that the PC era is coming to a close, this might change, but at the moment isn't the sweet spot for disk performance per dollar drawing on the same technology for servers as for individual computers? Sure, the server will have somewhat faster parts, but it might also have more than one user. And the network might have some congestion.
Whenever the power blinks at my job my computer stays happy, because I have a tiny UPS that can ride out short outages. But the rest of the services on our network seem to take the better part of an hour to all come back. Because my local computer is local it can be simpler and more reliable.
Something else I long ago observed: Because ethernet degrades gracefully it always operates degraded.
-kb, the Kent who is skeptical that NFS is really the better way. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
