Do you have a spec your working to meet? The Bertmeister
On Oct 3, 2013, at 3:06 AM, Dan Egli <ddavide...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sept. 27, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Lloyd Brown wrote: > >> Like so many things, it depends on your situation. 1GbE (and to a > >> lesser extent 10GbE and 40GbE) still have higher latencies over iSCSI > >> than a local disk (I don't personally know much about FCOE). If you can > > > > Sorry about being so long in replying to this. I wasn't able to carve out > any e-mail time in the last few days, so I'm only now catching up. :( > > > > The latencies don't need to be too small for this project. I do know I was > planning on implementing something similar at home (on a much smaller > scale, of course) and was thinking that I'd get near local disk performance > (for the most part) by hooking all the computers to a 10GbE network. The > machines would still PXE boot and load an NFS root, but since the NFS would > be piped over a 1.25Gigabyte per second (and yes I know it's not REALLY > that fast) connection, it should be nearly as fast (provided the link isn't > saturated) as a local disk. I figured that a SSD (fastest storage > available) connected to a SATA3 (6Gb/S) controller would run out of room to > read the data from the disk before the data pipe was full (since the 10GbE > network is like 66% bigger than the controller's 6Gb/S data pipeline). > > > >> But especially for a home-scale solution, I agree with you. 1GbE and > >> iSCSI is a pretty nice and cheap solution. Been meaning to do that one > >> one of these days. I'm not certain the pros/cons of iSCSI for Linux/BSD > >> installs, vs an NFSroot solution, though. > > > > That was my thought. iSCSI sounds nice on the one hand, but at the same > time it sounds a bit more complicated and then not quite as fast or easy as > a home-scale NFSroot setup. And especially with the Federal Government in > their shutdown mode, I don't expect the guy I'm doing this for to be able > to pull enough funding for a 10GbE or 40GbE setup. I fully expect them to > simply use the 1GbE connections built into the motherboard. For my personal > small network, I still think 10GbE would be best for speed, seeing as how > the network cap is around 66% larger than the maximum data from the disk. > Seems to me that the largest actual sustained throughput on a SATA3 that > I've read about was around 550-600 MB/S. That was off of one of Samsung's > new turbo SSDs I think (I'd have to go back and look for sure). Even > cutting 50% out of the speed of the network, 10GbE becomes 5Gb/Sec. That's > slightly faster than the SSD. Take an 8 second block. 5Gb/sec * 8 seconds = > 5 Gigabytes in the 8 seconds. Now, 600MB * 8 seconds = 4800MB, 4.8GB in > seconds. The network still has a 200MB/sec lead over the HDD's throughput. > In theory, it sounds great. Now I need to test or read up on more before > making such an implementation decision and buying hardware or configuring > and installing software. :) > > > > Thanks for all the info though! I may look into iSCSI or FCOE. Depends on > how easy it would be to configure with discreet NICs vs. the onboard > network adapter (unless someone knows of a good LGA1150 board with a 10GbE > socket vs. the usual 1GbE). > > > > --- Dan > > -----Legal Aide, Access on 9/28/2013 4:06 AM wrote: > > > >> > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
