[CentOS] Bond Issues

aurfalien at gmail.com aurfalien at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 21:21:37 UTC 2009

I mean iozone and not bonnie.


On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:56 PM, nate wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

More information about the CentOS mailing list