On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Ahmed Kamal < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > Hmm ... well, there is a considerable price difference, so unless someone > says I'm horribly mistaken, I now want to go back to Barracuda ES 1TB 7200 > drives. By the way, how many of those would saturate a single (non trunked) > Gig ethernet link ? Workload NFS sharing of software and homes. I think 4 > disks should be about enough to saturate it ? > SAS has far greater performance, and if your workload is extremely random, will have a longer MTBF. SATA drives suffer badly on random workloads. > > > BTW, for everyone saying zfs is more reliable because it's closer to the > application than a netapp, well at least in my case it isn't. The solaris > box will be NFS sharing and the apps will be running on remote Linux boxes. > So, I guess this makes them equal. How about a new "reliable NFS" protocol, > that computes the hashes on the client side, sends it over the wire to be > written remotely on the zfs storage node ?! > Won't be happening anytime soon. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
