Every situation is different.

Every I/O causes an interrupt. Each interrupt causes some amount of CPU
resource to be dedicated to processing the interrupt. Depending on how smart
an I/O card is, that CPU resource can be tiny or it can be noticeable. The
more I/O's you do, the more time you spend in I/O interrupt processing.

So, if you've got files in cache, you reduce your disk interrupts. Doesn't
affect your network interrupts.

Depending on how large the files are, and how many are being transferred at
once, network I/O interrupts can consume a LARGE portion of a file server's
CPU resource.

Having files in cache can speed access to files without going through disk,
allowing network I/O interrupts to be processed more quickly. Depending on
the queuing model, this could actually reduce CPU utilization - or it could
increase it.

How does this affect YOUR situation? I dunno. It may not. It depends. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:27 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: File server question

CPU? How?

I would say the opposite, by a very big measure :) Ram is *way* more
important...

jlc

-----Original Message-----
From: HELP_PC [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: R: File server question

Go with SAS drives and a cached RAID card .More than memory the CPU is very
important. 2 Quad Xeon and 4 gigabit NICs teamed 


GuidoElia
HELPPC

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Eric Brouwer [mailto:[email protected]] 
Inviato: venerdì 6 marzo 2009 16.09
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: File server question

Good morning,

We're looking at implementing a new file server at work.  It will store a
healthy amount of data (6-8 TB).  Our editors will work on projects locally,
and backup their projects nightly to the file server via a Robocopy routine.
Only changed files will be copied across the network.  We have four editors,
and a gigabit network.

How important will the processor and memory be in this situation?  I assume
our biggest bottlenecks will be the SATA controllers and network speed.  Am
I correct?

Thank you,

Eric Brouwer
IT Manager
www.forestpost.com
[email protected]
248.855.4333





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
<http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Reply via email to