On Mon December 12 2011, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:23:39PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > > so, what performance do you get over this setup > > ignoring any filesystem overhead? 50MB/s 100MB/s ? > > I will have to nuke the system in order to make it > production, but it should be able to saturate GBit/s. > I don't know how many IOPS it would have, but it > is likely to have at least an order of magnitude > better performance than the local RAID 1 pair > of spindles. > > > how many packets (I/O operations) can you transmit > > in a second? 10k? 20k? ... > > I'm expecting about 1 k IOPS, but I haven't measured > that yet. > > > I guess a single SSD, attached via SATA 6GB locally > > will seriously outperform whatever solution you have > > in mind, but of course, you cannot share that between > > different hosts easily > > I don't have a spare slot in the server (it's an old > SunFire X2100 M2) and I wouldn't be able to afford 2 TByte > of SSD in any case. > 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? 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. >