3 ms·
This comparison seems a little disingenuous in this context. I read GP's post as saying simply that the current speed of SW RAID is enough to saturate current
by gibspaulding 7y ago
This comparison seems a little disingenuous in this context. I read GP's post as saying simply that the current speed of SW RAID is enough to saturate current network speeds. If in the future we make some great breakthroughs in network technology without making the same progress in compute performance, then perhaps hardware RAID will become more relevant again, but right now software strikes a better balance.
- throwaway_pdp09 7y agoNot my best post. I can't argue about bandwidth saturation aobviously but "how much more performance you really need?" is a silly question. It dismisses the possibility of it being not enough. But yes, not a good post.
- correctasshole 7y agoYou fell into a classic trap: premature optimization is the root of all evil. It makes no sense to seg out [superior and more agile] software functionality to a one-and-done ASIC or fancy FPGA that has a magnitude order or more of overhead/management that you must immediately invest in. When I can't feed Nx10GbE or 100GbE with ZFS, I'll consider this an issue. Until then, it is merely an exercise in logical masturbation.
- sjwright 7y agoIt wasn't a silly question, and it didn't dismiss the possibility of it being not enough. It's correct and reasonable to say that it's extremely unusual to need disk transfer speeds in excess of 100 Gbps in any standard deployment. Nobody said everyone everywhere. Nobody said forever.