Hi,
I need to deploy some network storage and I want to know which "type" your would recommend. The disks are Raid 10 but the storage needs to be remote (within a private network)
Thanks James
James Matthews wrote:
Hi,
I need to deploy some network storage and I want to know which "type" your would recommend. The disks are Raid 10 but the storage needs to be remote (within a private network)
What sort of workload?
For lowest latency of course I'd suggest a private 10GbE network with jumbo frames, keep the systems on the same switches, and use a purpose built high performance NAS system with 15k RPM SAS/Fiber disks and very large(4GB+) mirrored write cache rather then trying to roll your own.
nate
I am looking to mount it and as a webserver/database server. So you are recommending NFS?
James
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:04 PM, nate centos@linuxpowered.net wrote:
James Matthews wrote:
Hi,
I need to deploy some network storage and I want to know which "type"
your
would recommend. The disks are Raid 10 but the storage needs to be remote (within a private network)
What sort of workload?
For lowest latency of course I'd suggest a private 10GbE network with jumbo frames, keep the systems on the same switches, and use a purpose built high performance NAS system with 15k RPM SAS/Fiber disks and very large(4GB+) mirrored write cache rather then trying to roll your own.
nate
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:11:31AM +0300, James Matthews wrote:
I am looking to mount it and as a webserver/database server. So you are recommending NFS?
James
If you need shared access to the data, NFS is probably the simplest way to go. Depending on how busy things are, you might be fine with standard gig links as well.
If you don't need shared access, iSCSI/ATAoE, etc become an option (you could use them with a clustered filesystem also if you needed shared access, but this adds a layer of complexity).
Maybe you can define your use case a bit more.
Ray
James Matthews wrote:
I am looking to mount it and as a webserver/database server. So you are recommending NFS?
NFS only handles the network side of things, you can't format a disk/LUN with "NFS" as the file system. So you need a file system on the server.
It sounds like your needs are very simple, and you can just go with ext3 on the server and mount using NFS on the client.
Latency will be normal, not lowest, not low, but normal.
Test it out, see if it works for you.
I would not use NFS for a database myself, unless it was really lightly loaded, just a personal preference though.
You don't mention what the web server will be doing or what kind of database, what kind of throughput or IOPS your looking for etc.
You can see how a basic RHEL 5.1 system (not tuned) compares to some of the purpose built systems out there on the SPEC SFS benchmark: http://www.spec.org/sfs2008/results/sfs2008nfs.html
The NFS setup we have is backed by 200 disks, 56GB of mirrored cache on a set of active-active controllers. Performance is quite good, though it's not designed for lowest latency, we're using SATA-II disks instead of 10 or 15k RPM disks. It more than suits our needs though.
nate
-
James Matthews -
nate -
Ray Van Dolson