Re: file placement and SAN

Michael Brown wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:40:54 GMT, Sean M <smckeown_at_earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Due to it's built-in caching hardware and software, the NetApp
> >product probably performs at least as well as regular old
> >direct-attached D1000's and the like (that's just a gut feel, I have no
> >specific tests to support the claim).
>
> I have found NAS to be significantly slower, if you don't mind, how
> about posting the results of a couple of queries:

Oops. I think I see some of the confusion. This morning I wrote "at least as well" and I meant "almost as well." Plain old NAS (due to networking overhead, etc.) will have a hard time competing with direct attached, apples to apples. But the NetApp caching does help, and with multiple gigabit paths, etc., you can do pretty well. It's definitely not a high-performace solution, but the managability advantages often outweigh the performance cost for many systems.

Regards,
Sean Received on Thu Apr 25 2002 - 17:01:46 CDT