Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:16:19 +0200 From: Dean Strik <dean@stack.nl> To: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> Cc: Danny Howard <dannyman@toldme.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fibre Channel disks to two Systems? Message-ID: <20050911151619.GC15948@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <E1EE0tD-000IXW-4V@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> References: <E1EE0tD-000IXW-4V@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Danny Braniss wrote: > hi danny > you are asking too many questions :-), but w/r to netapp: > same computer, 1gbE, NFS is about 50% slower than FC. > btw, iSCSI (still beta) is only slightly faster than NFS > (note NFS is UDP, iSCSI is TCP). Of course NFS can be TCP as well. And must be TCP for NFSv4. > as to reliability, the netapp is worth avery penny (actualy K$ :-), had o= nly=20 > one major breakdown in over 10 years. Same experiences here, with lots of NetApps. I would however not be happy running PostgreSQL over NFS. With FC/iSCSI, no problem. --=20 Dean C. Strik Eindhoven University of Technology dean@stack.nl | dean@ipnet6.org | http://www.ipnet6.org/ "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli --UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDJEpD5Td/bYnvOAMRAjAeAJ0fqkAEa0fq9UBGJNRUYZ++4dt36wCfai/H 0s62PYd1Qw0abmjnMjz33pU= =aSVy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UFHRwCdBEJvubb2X--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050911151619.GC15948>