Re: NFS shares or iSCSI

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:22:07AM -0600, Michael S. Zick wrote:

> Why not use a small SATA-3 SSD on each of the host machines
> as a cache in front of your network file or block system?

If I would be running Solaris on my boxes I would do just
that (notice that I have only 2 SATA slots on the system,
so there's no space for another drive once you go
RAID 1). However, as a vserver user, my options are limited
to the fs that Linux natively provides. So no SSD caching
for me, until btrfs goes production, and actually can deal
with SSDs intelligently. 
 
> Something like:
> http://www.kingston.com/ssd/kc100.asp
> 
> Which would (in the 120Gbyte size) run you about $2/Gbyte and
> give each client machine a local 90K IOPS cache in front of
> your old server network connected at only 1Gbs.
> Caching locally about 5% of the network data would greatly
> reduce your network load.
> 
> Unless you can upgrade your networking to 10Gbs fiber, I think
> this would give you about the next best performance.
> 
> Mike 
> > I think I'll go with an NFS. I have some 3 consumer NAS
> > which export NFS as well, and I haven't done iSCSI yet
> > so NFS is definitely simpler to deploy.
> > 
> 
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE