Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Ceph distributed filesystem merged for 2.6.34Ceph distributed filesystem merged for 2.6.34Posted Mar 27, 2010 2:06 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Ceph distributed filesystem merged for 2.6.34 by cmccabe Parent article: Ceph distributed filesystem merged for 2.6.34
you are thinking of the itty-bitty data channel to the drives, but you are forgetting that the local system doesn't need to go to the drives most of the time. It can drastically speed things up by keeping the data cached in memory, which has a pretty fast and low latency interface to the cores.
(Log in to post comments)
Ceph distributed filesystem merged for 2.6.34 Posted Mar 27, 2010 4:15 UTC (Sat) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
Not to mention that the itty-bitty channel to the drives is there whether
the FS is local or distributed.
And as for the network bandwidth, this is less of a problem with a
Ceph distributed filesystem merged for 2.6.34 Posted Apr 8, 2010 1:29 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
> And as for the network bandwidth, this is less of a problem with a
> distributed FS than with NFS since at least it has the chance of being > stripped across various point to point connections instead of all points to > one single connection.
You're missing a very important point here. Ethernet connections in an office are almost never point-to-point. Everyone uses a star topolgy. So all 30 of the computers on a floor might go through one gig-e switch.
In theory, the bandwidth of a dedicated gigE connection is comparable to the bandwidth between a PC and another PC on a 1 gig-E switch. In practice, the switch may not be able to handle everyone talking at once.
There may be latency issues with network I/O too. It depends on the network.
|
|||||||||||||