4 ms·

1.1GB/sec throughput is pretty good over a 10Gb/sec network. That’s 88% saturation. Right?

• jeffbee 4y ago
  That's pretty much as fast as it can possibly go, yes. That's why I would try thunderbolt instead. It's faster.
  • geerlingguy 4y ago
    Someday I plan on upgrading to 25 Gbps or greater, and this build may still provide headroom since it has the free x16 PCIe 3.0 slot. But storage bandwidth would probably fall off before network bandwidth at that point.
    • technofiend 4y ago
      Jeff, if you do end up with a noise-friendly place to rack a server then options open up. The last dl360 I bought was less than $1k and came with a Mellonox dual port 40 gigabit NIC. Equipment is still cheap in the used market because those who haven't just moved to the cloud are still upgrading to newer and faster servers and networks as older servers and switches are fully depreciated and scrapped. Eventually that stream will diminish but the cycle will repeat every few years.
  • mbreese 4y ago
    That’s what I didn’t understand. If you want this accessible over a network, you wouldn’t want to use a direct thunderbolt connection. As mentioned below, you could try 25Gbps Ethernet, but you’d also need to upgrade the clients. I assume the clients are currently 10GigE (copper?). As it is, you’re pretty much saturating the network bandwidth. Really, he could have also saturated the bandwidth with spinning HDDs too, given enough of them.
    • jeffbee 4y ago
      The network sounded pretty small in this case, so 2x thunderbolt ports would have done the job. Anyway the means of attachment would be ip-over-thunderbolt, which is a thing that is supported by both Mac OS and Linux, so it can all be bridged to a traditional ethernet if needed for other clients.