On Samstag, 23. Oktober 2010 Angelo McComis wrote: > They quoted having 10+TB databases running OLTP on EXT3 with > 4-5GB/sec sustained throughput (not XFS). Which servers and storage are these? This is nothing you can do with "normal" storages. Using 8Gb/s Fibre Channel gives 1GB/s, if you can do full speed I/O. So you'd need at least 5 parallel Fibre Channel storages running without any overhead. Also, a single server can't do that high rates, so there must be several front-end servers. That again means their database must be especially organised for that type of load (shared nothing or so). On the other hand, if they have these performance numbers on 100 shared serves, it only needs 51MB/s per server of I/O to get 5GB/s total throughput. So that is a number without a lot of meaning, as long as you don't know which hardware is used. And: how high would be their throughput when using XFS instead EXT3? ;-) One question comes to my mind: if they do direct I/O, would there still be a lot of difference between XFS and EXT3, performance wise? And how many companies run around telling which filesystem they use for their performance critical business application? Normally they do this only for marketing, so they get paid or special prices if they say "with this product we are sooo happy". -- mit freundlichen GrÃssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716 // Wir haben im Moment zwei HÃuser zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
