[CentOS] Bond Issues

nate centos at linuxpowered.net
Tue Oct 6 21:56:40 UTC 2009


aurfalien at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Nate,
>
> Off topic, why Exanet over say Bluearc?

Oh how ironic.. We migrated off of our BlueArc onto the
Exanet. We still have the 4 racks of BlueArc equipment if
you or anyone else is interested, the best offer we've had
is $500 from our co-lo provider for 150TB of storage and 3
EOL'd BlueArc head units.

In a nutshell as to why, while BlueArc makes some good
NAS technology, certainly very fast, the fact is most other
NAS companies have caught up to the point now where they
are "fast enough". Our Exanet cluster is running at ~30% CPU.

BlueArc's back end storage is absolute crap, at least their
LSI stuff. They refused to support any other storage other
than their own or storage from HDS, which makes good stuff
but overpriced and overly complicated.

I would of liked to have kept their NAS technology and put
it in front of an equally impressive 3PAR back end storage
array but they wouldn't have it. I had not heard of
Exanet(nor BlueArc) but when I approached 3PAR they brought
in Exanet as their NAS partner of choice mainly for performance
and cost reasons.

> And why bond1 over bond0?

bond1 over bond0? Not sure what your referring to, if you
mean mode=1 over mode=0, it's a simpler active/failover
design, and these systems don't need more than 1Gbps of
throughput a piece.

nate





More information about the CentOS mailing list