on ANI (and I am not sure if new proposals are being
accepted), see:
http://www.es.net/RandD/advanced-networking-initiative/
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Sami Halabi wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
ll work,
too. All 100G hardware is just a mite pricey, though it has dropped
tremendously over the past year and a half and I expect it will
continue to do so.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
E-mail: kob6...@gmail.com
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.
ent
and the only really good information on it is mav's excellent wiki
page. From queries about the subject, most people really don't
understand the concepts and do the wrong thing. Frankly, FreeBSD does
the wrong thing by default, as mav pointed out.
--
R. Kevi
BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
>>
>
>
> Er... does ext4 guarantee data integrity?
>
> You're not comparing like with like; please do some research on the
> point of ZFS before asserting that they're fair comparisons.
>
> A fair(er) comparison could be ext4 with UFS+soft
than 1Gb. With 10Gb cards, I can sustain
transfer rates of over 9Gbps (assuming low RTT and suitable
hardware). 1Gbps is not even a challenge...even over a 100 ms. RTT.
Note that high throughput may require some tuning. Transmit and receive
windows need to be rather large if the RTT is very long
