On Sep 27, 2009, at 7:07 PM, J.J. Larrea wrote:
While there was indeed a measurable performance hit, which as one might expect took the form of a broader distribution of request latencies, the mean time was if I recall only 15%-20% worse for the virtualized/SAN configuration. This was adjudged to be a reasonable price to pay for the savings in rack-space, server hardware purchase and maintenance costs, and simplicity in managing the server farm. It was also surpassed by other performance bottlenecks which had an even greater impact, which we have been addressing over time. So we stuck with the virtualized configuration and not looked back. Had we seen a 50% speed difference, it would have been a different story. If we had 10M hits a day on the search server, it might have been a different story. If SAN reliability had unfavorably impacted our uptime average, it would have been different.
Right... As a counter example, moving a system from the SAN to local storage boosted IO throughput from 200 MBps (megabytes per second) to over 1,600 MBps. But, as always, YMMV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
