On 06/05/10 15:03, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 05/06/10 02:57, Vlamsdoem wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/10 15:12, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/05/10 08:38, John Drescher wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Sorry my servers are on gigabit links.
> How do you come to 9MB/s with a 100Mb link, is i
On 05/06/10 02:57, Vlamsdoem wrote:
> On 05/05/10 15:12, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> On 05/05/10 08:38, John Drescher wrote:
>>
Sorry my servers are on gigabit links.
How do you come to 9MB/s with a 100Mb link, is it not equals to 12,5 MB/s?
>>> Overhead.
>>>
>>>
On 05/05/10 15:12, Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 05/05/10 08:38, John Drescher wrote:
>
>>> Sorry my servers are on gigabit links.
>>> How do you come to 9MB/s with a 100Mb link, is it not equals to 12,5 MB/s?
>>>
>> Overhead.
>>
>>
>>> If it's correct on a gigabit link I would have
>> >No way are your SATA drives that fast. More likely 1/4 to 1/3 of that
> If the link is 90 MB/s and drives deliver 1/4 of 375 MB/s(94 MB/s) - that's
> a throughput of about 90 MB/s. That's a whopping speed of 324 GB/hr. You
> must be going through a fiber switch to a striped array of sorts.
>
Ag
>If it's correct on a gigabit link I would have a rate transfer of 90MB/s
...
> and the transfer rate of the sata disks are 3Gb/s(375MB/s).
...
> >No way are your SATA drives that fast. More likely 1/4 to 1/3 of that
If the link is 90 MB/s and drives deliver 1/4 of 375 MB/s(94 MB/s) - that's
a thr
On 05/05/10 08:38, John Drescher wrote:
>> Sorry my servers are on gigabit links.
>> How do you come to 9MB/s with a 100Mb link, is it not equals to 12,5 MB/s?
>
> Overhead.
>
>> If it's correct on a gigabit link I would have a rate transfer of 90MB/s
>
> You will probably get less than that if
>> and the transfer rate of the sata disks are 3Gb/s(375MB/s).
>
> No way are your SATA drives that fast. More likely 1/4 to 1/3 of that
> speed unless all servers are using high end SSDs.
>
I forgot to mention that this ~100MB/s is only for large sequential
reads. When reads get small or random th
> Sorry my servers are on gigabit links.
> How do you come to 9MB/s with a 100Mb link, is it not equals to 12,5 MB/s?
Overhead.
> If it's correct on a gigabit link I would have a rate transfer of 90MB/s
You will probably get less than that if you do not use jumbo frames.
> and the transfer rate
On 04/05/10 13:51, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Am Tue, 04 May 2010 08:34:15 +0200 schrieb Vlamsdoem:
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have few questions about my new backup configuration. Before asking my
>> questions I will give you some useful information about what I need to
>> do.
>> I need a backup ± 10
On Tue, 4 May 2010, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> IMHO the backup disks will not be the bottleneck if you go with SATA 7.2k
> drives. but check the specs - i'm sure HP is providing performance data
> somewhere on the homepage (or ask your dealer)
IMHO it's unsafe to back up to a single disk (of any typ
Am Tue, 04 May 2010 08:34:15 +0200 schrieb Vlamsdoem:
> Hello,
>
> I have few questions about my new backup configuration. Before asking my
> questions I will give you some useful information about what I need to
> do.
> I need a backup ± 10 servers with one full backup every week of 3,5 TB
> and
Hello,
I have few questions about my new backup configuration.
Before asking my questions I will give you some useful information about
what I need to do.
I need a backup ± 10 servers with one full backup every week of 3,5 TB
and an incremental backup of 100GB 5 times/week.
I have 48 hours to do
12 matches
Mail list logo
