From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Fjellstrom Subject: Re: Remote NAS Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:15:47 -0600 Message-ID: <200909280815.47537.tfjellstrom@shaw.ca> References: <41943.20139.qm@web38801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Reply-To: tfjellstrom@shaw.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <41943.20139.qm@web38801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: adfas asd Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon September 28 2009, adfas asd wrote: > I am puzzled by why write-mostly. Ostensibly Gb ethernet is supposed to > nearly equal the data transfer rate of the controller cards, and be many > times the speed of actual data transfer from the drives. > > So shouldn't a NAS have plenty of bandwidth to accommodate most any drive > operations? My GbE lan gets about 90MiB/s, my pcie sata card has shown upwards of 400MiB/s. I haven't done full tests on the sata card yet, but it clearly is able to more than saturate a single GbE connection. > I will be setting up a small high-perf drive for / (including database) so > the only data on the array will be /home (including large videos). > > Seems like there is no need to specify write-mostly? > > --- On Sun, 9/27/09, Leslie Rhorer wrote: > > In his situation (assuming he doesn't > > take my advice and separate > > the remote system entirely), wouldn't he be better served > > to create a RAIDn > > array on both systems and then create a RAID1 from the > > local and NAS array > > with the write mostly option? > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Thomas Fjellstrom tfjellstrom@shaw.ca