David, is there a way to find out what the load on this host bridge is currently at so that we can project end of life for this installed filer?
Also, does adding a second SCSI controller split up this load, or is it all on the same host bridge? We're running our F230 in a supported but non-standard four shelf configuration with two controllers, but most disks are on the first controller currently.
We're seeking ways to keep this NetApp in useful service as long as possible, and certainly appreciate any feedback you can give on reducing bottlenecks.
We are currently considering a massive increase in the RAM in our web servers which would be used by the kernel for disk buffers. The theory is that if the kernel simply asks the filer if the data file has changed, and it hasn't, and it's served out of disk buffer cache RAM on the web server itself, this would be less load on the filer because the filer never ends up serving the file if there's a cache hit in the web server client.
What are your thoughts on this?
Currently our web servers have 256M of ram, of which only about 32M is used for disk buffers. We're considering increasing this to 1024M of RAM, most of which would be used for buffers. Price for this upgrade to our web servers is about $1800 each, so it's a lot less painful than a filer upgrade.
Thanks for the feedback.
-Dane
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 08:28:23AM -0800, Bulfer, David wrote:
The F230's performance is not limited by CPU clock rate. It is limited by the performance of the host bridge (a.k.a. north bridge). The host bridge defines memory bandwidth and PCI bandwidth. Overclocking the F230 won't solve a heavily loaded filer.
David