On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 12:22:56PM -0500, Tim wrote: > > - This will mainly be used for NFS sharing. Everyone is saying it will have > > "bad" performance. My question is, how "bad" is bad ? Is it worse than a > > plain Linux server sharing NFS over 4 sata disks, using a crappy 3ware raid > > card with caching disabled ? coz that's what I currently have. Is it say > > worse that a Linux box sharing over soft raid ? > > Whoever is saying that is being dishonest. NFS is plenty fast for most > workloads. There are very, VERY few workloads in the enterprise that are > I/O bound, they are almost all IOPS bound.
NFS is bad for workloads that involve lots of operations that NFS requires to be synchronous and which the application doesn't parallelize. Things like open(2) and close(2), for example, which means applications like tar(1). The solution is to get a fast slog device. (Or to use an NFS server that violates the synchrony requirement.) Nico -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
