11 ms·
67TB of storage, with 4GB of cache. I'd really love to see some performance numbers versus the way-too-expensive competition. If the systems are being used as
by tsuraan 17y ago
67TB of storage, with 4GB of cache. I'd really love to see some performance numbers versus the way-too-expensive competition. If the systems are being used as tape drive replacements, I could see this working well, but as an actual NAS-like device, I can't imaging how it could perform acceptably. Of course, if those Intel motherboards have the dual 1Gb/s NICs that Intel boards generally do, it will probably take a while to fill the drives anyhow.
- notaddicted 17y agohttp://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(67+TB)+%2F+(2*(1+Gb%2Fs)+ http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(67+TB)+%2F+(2*(1+Gb%2F...) It'll take 3 days at the theoretical max of the networking equipment to read/write the 67TB. The overhead of HTTPS constrains the networking so this is too low. I'd expect that their internet connection (i.e. in/out of the data center) is the real bottleneck. I believe that the system is being used as a tape drive replacement.
- lsc 17y agoIf the load is relatively sequential, then yeah. But if the load is mostly random, then there is an argument for having more cache.
- lsc 17y agoActually, that's the problem with most NetAPP/EMC foo, too. they are way light on the cache. These guys only use 4GiB ram because they are saving money on the motherboard, I bet. Personally, if I were building it, I'd increase the cost by another grand or so and use dual low power opterons with 32GiB ram. (of course, that would also increase the space taken by the motherboard, so that would require some case redesigns. Still, opterons and registered ecc ddr2 are both incredibly cheap right now.)
- pmorici 17y agoWhat if they used AndrewFS with SSD drives for cache on front end nodes.