On 08/26/99 15:41:50 you wrote:
the fix was simple. i didn't realize that things were set up for synchronous writes. once i set it to asynchronous mode, write performance skyrocketed.
This sounds like such a mode doesn't commit the write to stable storage before responding to the client. Sure, performance will be great, but you'll lose data and have potential corruption the first time the machine goes down. This is hardly a winning quality.
to Bruce: the performance of this box is quite good actually. NetApp isn't the only game in town.
If you price/performance, multiprotocol, and ease of use are on your agenda, Netapp *is* the only game in town. With other vendors you only get to pick 2.
i sent my question to this list because from time to time people talk about systems from auspex, emc, and many others.
Well, people on the list are free to talk about what they chose, but I think the general idea is to discuss such systems only in relation to Netapp. Not "My Auspex isn't working, any ideas?" questions.
Bruce
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 sirbruce@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Well, people on the list are free to talk about what they chose, but I think the general idea is to discuss such systems only in relation to Netapp. Not "My Auspex isn't working, any ideas?" questions.
I thought the list was named 'toasters', not 'netapps' for a reason. We wouldn't want to leave the Yahoo! folks out in the cold, would we?
matto
--matt@snark.net----------------------------------------------<darwin>< Matt Ghali MG406/GM023JP tokyo refugee - sysadmin - crazed rx7 driver www.hello-kitty.net "WWW my testicles!" - Bob Allisat, net.kook
I'd also like to know from the owner of the list whether this is a NAS list or a NetApp love fest.
Tony Primavera Director of Professional Services ECCS Inc. www.eccs.com http://www.eccs.com (334) 365-1385
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of just me. Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 4:00 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Cc: sirbruce@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: SUMMARY: really bad NFS write performance but NFS reads are OK
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 sirbruce@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Well, people on the list are free to talk about what they chose, but I think the general idea is to discuss such systems only in relation to Netapp. Not "My Auspex isn't working, any ideas?" questions.
I thought the list was named 'toasters', not 'netapps' for a reason. We wouldn't want to leave the Yahoo! folks out in the cold, would we?
matto
--matt@snark.net----------------------------------------------<darwin>< Matt Ghali MG406/GM023JP tokyo refugee - sysadmin - crazed rx7 driver www.hello-kitty.net "WWW my testicles!" - Bob Allisat, net.kook
"primosaur" == Tony Primavera primosaur@prodigy.net writes:
primosaur> I'd also like to know from the owner of the list whether primosaur> this is a NAS list or a NetApp love fest.
You, like everyone else that subscribed to this list, received a welcome message stating the purpose of the list. If you didn't bother to read that, sirbruce was kind enough to post his copy. If you didn't bother to read *either*, then bugger off.
K.
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Tony Primavera wrote:
I'd also like to know from the owner of the list whether this is a NAS list or a NetApp love fest.
This mailing list is aimed at users and admins of Network Appliance filers (thus the moniker "toasters"). It is not a support forum for NAS or SAN products from other vendors (although as someone else already pointed out, they are often brought up in context around a Netapp product). Pose off-topic questions at your own peril. ;-)
-
beepy＠netapp.com -
Brian Tao -
fubar＠mathworks.com -
just me. -
sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com -
Tony Primavera