From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mikael Abrahamsson Subject: Re: RAID performance Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:33:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <51134E43.7090508@websitemanagers.com.au> <51137FB8.6060003@websitemanagers.com.au> <511471EA.2000605@hardwarefreak.com> <5114A53B.9060103@websitemanagers.com.au> <5115316F.1090502@hardwarefreak.com> <5115478A.8010004@websitemanagers.com.au> <5115CC02.2010400@hardwarefreak.com> <51179F09.1020503@hardwarefreak.com> <6990fbda-f741-454a-80cd-bdcdfd8c971c@email.android.com> <511817D8.7020809@websitemanagers.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <511817D8.7020809@websitemanagers.com.au> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Adam Goryachev Cc: Stan Hoeppner , Dave Cundiff , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Mon, 11 Feb 2013, Adam Goryachev wrote: > If I use a 10G connection for the SAN, and multiple 1G connections for > the clients, then I will still end up with a max of 1G read speed, since > the switch will only deliver data on a single port. So to get better > than 1G speed, I must use higher bandwidth channels, but using 10G on > all machines allows a single server to "flood" the network... If your equipment supports it, you should put in some kind of policer to rate-limit traffic based on destination (or the whole port). Then you could limit each server to 2-3 gigabit/s on their 10G port, and the file server could get its entire 10G port (or limit that to 5-6 gigabit/s). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se