From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:35333 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754954Ab0K2Wjo (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:39:44 -0500 Received: by vws3 with SMTP id 3so166507vws.19 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:39:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CF42BAD.1060607@garzik.org> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:39:41 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik To: Jim Rees CC: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, peter honeyman , sfaibish Subject: Re: Block layout rpm References: <20101129210708.GA21682@merit.edu> <4CF4249F.9070400@garzik.org> <20101129222613.GA1210@merit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20101129222613.GA1210@merit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On 11/29/2010 05:26 PM, Jim Rees wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > "pNFS will work with 32-bit linux and lesser hardware, but the you > will not obtain the performance benefits of pNFS." > > That's just silly, and, I might even go so far as to say "wrong". > The benefits of direct-to-storage access, without an MDS middle-man, > are quite noticable even for 32-bit, underpowered, and/or embedded > clients. > > Agreed. It used to say 64-bit only, and I added the part about 32-bit > because it does run on 32-bit, but really that should just come out. I'll > fix it. Thanks. I'd also say, with my networking hat on, the VLAN statement is unqualified. VLAN is not necessary for pNFS, but the way the statement reads to me, I get the opposite impression. pNFS works quite well if you're just a 1U client with a single NIC, for example. Jeff