On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, E Hunter wrote:
I'm sure you'll let me know if these are better left to the sales people, but they will help me a great deal in completing the evaluation my company wants me to write.
Sales people will tend to paint a rosier picture than reality, but the folks in here (generally being techies or engineering types) will give you the straight goods. ;-) OTOH, sales reps are good for swag. :)
[Hint: to anyone reading from netapp... need more swag! Jackets, mugs, blankets, shoulder bags, multitools, sunglasses, etc.? I've got the shirts, the swiss army knife, the baseball cap and a few other trinkets already. ;-) ]
Basically, I understand from the literature I've read that the 760 runs a sort of modified RAID level 4. In our particular environment, recoverability is not as important as speed,
The WAFL filesystem is extremely efficient when it comes to writing out entire stripes (parity and all) to disk. I doubt there would be any real performance gain assuming you switch the filer to RAID 0 (which a Netapp can't do anyway). Filers win on access times, not so much raw throughput. If you're looking for 100 MB/sec sustained writes to disk, a Netapp isn't going to cut it (yet).
What sort of application will this be for? The other thing a filer isn't fast at (and this is really the fault of NFS) is locking. We have one particular financial application that locks/unlocks rows in a database file like a sonofabitch, and it completely falls over on an NFS filesystem, so we had to go back to local storage for it. Poor software design if you ask me, but that's another story.