On 15/02/2011 05:44, Matt Garman wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 06:06:43PM -0800, Doug Dumitru wrote: I'll also add that this NAS needs to be optimized for *read* throughput. As I mentioned, the only real write process is the daily "harvesting" of the data files. Those are copied across long-haul leased lines, and the copy process isn't really performance sensitive. In other words, in day-to-day use, those 40--50 client machines will do 100% reading from the NAS.
If you are not too bothered about write performance, I'd put a fair amount of the budget into ram rather than just disk performance. When you've got the ram space to make sure small reads are mostly cached, the main bottleneck will be sequential reads - and big hard disks handle sequential reads as fast as expensive SSDs.
No. :) 72 SSDs sounds like fun; 550 spinning disks sound dreadful. I have a feeling I'd probably have to keep a significant number on-hand as spares, as I predict drive failures would probably be a weekly occurance.
Don't forget to include running costs in this - 72 SSDs use a lot less power than 550 hard disks.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
