On Fri 31 Dec, 1999, chris@cecil.muscat.com (Chris Good) wrote:
BTW who else thinks it sucks that you can only have a million or so objects in a netcache. bang went another couple of sales when we discovered that...
I've not played with one in ages, but can that really be right?
The Tech Specs sheet says that the C740 maxes at 990GB, (ok, probably because that's what the filer can do), so for an average 13kB object size that gives space for: 990*1024*1024/13 = approx 79 000 000 objects.
Even for the C720 (4 disks)'s more reasonable max 27GB, that's around 2 million. The C720/486GB is 39 million or so.
Surely you wouldn't have a system that would waste all that disk space? To look at it another way, 990GB of disk and only one million objects would mean the average file size could be as high 1MB.
The aforementioned specs, and the rest of the docs, have nothing to say on the matter though.
James.
On Fri 31 Dec, 1999, chris@cecil.muscat.com (Chris Good) wrote:
BTW who else thinks it sucks that you can only have a million or so objects in a netcache. bang went another couple of sales when we discovered that...
I've not played with one in ages, but can that really be right?
The Tech Specs sheet says that the C740 maxes at 990GB, (ok, probably because that's what the filer can do), so for an average 13kB object size that gives space for: 990*1024*1024/13 = approx 79 000 000 objects.
Even for the C720 (4 disks)'s more reasonable max 27GB, that's around 2 million. The C720/486GB is 39 million or so.
disk is not the limiting factor. Memory is. There are hard limits due to memory size. Im not quite sure what they currently are though.
Surely you wouldn't have a system that would waste all that disk space? To look at it another way, 990GB of disk and only one million objects would mean the average file size could be as high 1MB.
The aforementioned specs, and the rest of the docs, have nothing to say on the matter though.
James.
-
jrg＠acm.org -
quirion＠netapp.com