On Sep 24, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Doug Hughes wrote: > RAID-5/6 are bad at IOPS. You get the equivalent IOPS of one disk > (because all disks have to ask in synchronicity. But, for throughput, > they are just fine. As long as you're writing more than (and preferably > in multiples of) the stripe width, there's no penalty with a modern > processor. zoom zoom for large sequential throughput.
Actually, everything depends on the underlying implementation and how much logic is layered on top of the physical configuration, and how much that logic isolates or exposes you to the quirks of the underlying technology. I can tell you that the Linux NFS server has historically had quite a few issues with performance and reliability, even when used with other Linux clients (and no cross-platform issues to be concerned with), and when used with settings that are "optimal" for that particular pattern of data access. Solutions to this particular problem space are going to depend on what options are available. Can you do a forklift upgrade of the Linux NFS server for something that actually does reasonably well in that job, either another piece of relatively generic hardware running a relatively general-purpose OS like Solaris or FreeBSD? Is replacing the Linux NFS server with an appliance (e.g., NetApp) an option? If the only option is what mount options you have to play with, then you may be able to get a certain way down the road, but you're going to reach that dead-end pretty quickly and you're not likely to be able to go past that point without looking at some significantly more expensive options. -- Brad Knowles <b...@shub-internet.org> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
