On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 15:18 -0700, Maxwell Reid wrote: > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com>wrote: > > > Noel Butler put forth on 8/6/2010 4:29 PM: > > > > > Actually you will not notice any difference. How do you think all the > > > big boys do it now :) Granted some opted for the SAN approach over NAS, > > > but for mail, NAS is better way to go IMHO and plenty of large services, > > > ISP, corporations, and universities etc, all use NAS. > > > > The protocol overhead of the NFS stack is such that one way latency is in > > the > > 1-50 millisecond range, depending on specific implementations and server > > load. > > > > Yes, I would say NFS has greater overhead, but it allows for multi system > access where fiber channel does not unless you're using clustered > filesystems which have their own issues with latency and lock management.... > it's also worth noting that the latencies between the storage and mail > processing nodes is an insignificant bottle neck compared to the usual > latencies between the client and mail processing nodes. > >
*nods* Thats why my very first line said ' will not "notice" any difference ' > > Those who would recommend NFS/NAS over fibre channel SAN have no experience > > with fibre channel SANs. > > > > Bold statement there sir :-) From a price performance ratio, I'd argue NAS > is far superior and scalable, and generally there is far less management and with large mail systems, scalability is what it is all about Cheers
