On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design
but...they might not need it.
Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a
bit, even if the disks are better than average and can achieve
1000Mb/s each, each uplink from the multiplier to the controller
will still have 1000Gb/s to spare in the slowest SATA mode out
there. With (5) disks per multiplier * (2) multipliers * 1000GB/s
each, that's 10000Gb/s at the PCI-e interface, which approximately
coincides with a meager 4x PCI-e slot.
That doesn't matter. It does HTTP PUT/GET, so it is completely
limited by the network interface.
The advantage to their model is that they are not required to implement
a POSIX file system. PUT/GET is very easy to implement and tends to
be large transfers. In other words, they aren't running an OLTP
database,
no user-level quotas, no directories with millions of files, etc. The
simple
life can be good :-)
I'd be more interested in seeing their field failure rate data :-)
FWIW, bringing such a product to a global market would raise the
list price to be on par with the commercially available products.
Testing, qualifying, service, documentation, warranty, marketing,
distribution, taxes, sales, and all sorts of other costs add up quickly.
-- richard
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
