On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300
Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:
> I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms of network latency. I want to
> set some servers in each location and have all data accessible from
> anywhere. I'll have about 2TB of data at each location, one location
> will probably scale up.
%-W-NORML Normal Successful Completion
--
cinap :)
> issuing multiple outstanding
> messages is how protocols like aoe, pcie, etc. get speed. writes are posted.
>
> the question for me is how does one make this easy and natural. one way
> is to allow the mnt driver to issue multiple concurrent reads or writes for
> the same i/o. another would b
> > did you do testing at regular lan latencies? what i see on my networks
> > is usually <= 30µs.
> >
> > - erik
> >
>
> I induced latencies similar to those found on the Internet. My tests at LAN
> speeds (500us in my sub-optimal setup) had 9P at essentially the same
> transfer rate as HTTP. My
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:29:29 EDT erik quanstrom
wrote:
> > > Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p
> > > operation? (I have 100Mbit).
> >
> > With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more
> > than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be
> >
On Aug 17, 2011 10:40 PM, "erik quanstrom" wrote:
> > slower than transferring via HTTP. When I tested 9P vs. HTTP over
> > connections with 25 ms latency (50ms RTT), I saw a 4x slowdown versus
> > HTTP. Even at 15 ms RTT, transfers took twice as long.
>
> did you do testing at regular lan latenci
> > > Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p
> > > operation? (I have 100Mbit).
> >
> > With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more
> > than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be
> > 6.55Mbps or about 15 times slower than using HTTP/FTP on
>
> Ken's FS serves only 9P and can be a hassle to set up and get going.
> In my opinion, if you can live without ephemeral snapshots, just run
> fossil+venti with snapshots turned off, which should eliminate the
> stability complaint.
since it's job is to be a plan 9 file server, this should be nei
> > Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p
> > operation? (I have 100Mbit).
>
> With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more
> than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be
> 6.55Mbps or about 15 times slower than using HTTP/FTP on
> 100Mbps lin
if the link is stable, cfs(4) might be useful.
-Skip
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?=
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file
>> servers. I'm hoping
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?=
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file
>> servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and
>> Ma
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?=
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file
> servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and
> Mac OS X.
>
> I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms of netw
> Right now (only one location) I am using a Solaris server with ZFS
> that serves SMB and iSCSI. It works great, there's nothing wrong with
> it, but I would like a Plan9 solution. Or do you think iSCSI would
> perform better with this latency? (I can't use AoE as AoE is not
> routable).
use a la
> > What's the best option for RAID in Plan9? I understand I can use
> > either Ken's fileserver or the Plan9 '#k' device.
>
> note that neither of these are RAID in the way most people expect. failure
> notification, in particular, can be lacking, and they're more restricted in
> what
> they tr
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Anthony Sorace wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:
>
>> Can anyone shed some light on why I might want one and not the other?
>> Are there any other options?
>
> ken's fs is a kernel, and essentially gives you a 9p-accessible file storage
>
On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:
> What's the best option for RAID in Plan9? I understand I can use
> either Ken's fileserver or the Plan9 '#k' device.
note that neither of these are RAID in the way most people expect. failure
notification, in particular, can be lacking, and t
Hello,
I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file
servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and
Mac OS X.
I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms of network latency. I want to
set some servers in each location and have all data accessible from
anywh
17 matches
Mail list logo
