Hi Joe, Can you please explain what will happen that still we will see a performance increase through using multiple volumes for each repository? So practically using different volumes for FlowFile, Provenance and Content would overcome space collision situation. Based on the mentioned example so 100GB FlowFile, 1TB prov and 4TB Content Repo should still have less throughput than 100GB FlowFile, 2x500GB prov and 8x500GB content repo in practice for a fully virtualized environment.
Regards, Ali On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Joe Skora <[email protected]> wrote: > Ali, > > If you can separate the repositories onto separate physical spindles I > would expect a performance benefit, but if they are all on virtualized > storage I'd expect less performance benefit from separate volumes. But, > even on virtualized storage, separate volumes can help reduce space > collision problems, preventing runaway system logs or the provenance > repository, for instance, from filling the disk and running the content > repository out of space. > > Regards, > Joe S > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I was wondering whether there is any performance throughput of having >> multiple disk mount points for FlowFile, Provenance and Content or using >> single mount point for all of them if we are using a fully virtualized >> deployment with a shared storage. Suppose we have got 500TB disks in the >> Share Storage. Which one do you suggest: 100 GB for FlowFile 2x500GB for >> Provenance and 8x500GB for the Content repository or using a single mount >> point of 5.1TB for the entire instance? In another word, it would be better >> Nifi keeps track of load among the disk mount points or delegate it >> entirely to the shared storage? >> >> Regards, >> Ali >> > > -- A.Nazemian
