[lug] Linux Cluster Hardware

[Nate Duehr]

Obviously my experience with the NetApp Filers is limited and it would
appear a bit dated also.  Thanks for the information and I took the
humour as it was meant.  But I understand why Wayde's trying to make
sure the BLUG list doesn't end up having massive flamewars.  (There's
plenty of places to go for those!)

I guess if I had need for some of the things Chris mentioned in his
description of the Filer, I'd probably have known they did that.  I'm a
minimalist and probably couldn't stomach asking anyone to spend the kind
of money the NetApp's pull down, unless the requirements of the job
really needed it.  

I definitely didn't know what I was talking about, though!  :) :)

Sorry, we're way off topic, so I'll ask a Linux-specific question.  Does
anyone know good places on the web to find information in a "HOW-TO"
type format for performance tuning Linux systems?  Since we were
specifially talking about NFS, that would be of interest, but any sites
would be useful to many of us!

On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 01:30:18PM -0600, Chris M wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Wayde Allen <wallen at boulder.nist.gov>
> > Reply-To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> > Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:18:16 -0600 (MDT)
> > To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> > Subject: Re: [lug] Linux Cluster Hardware
> > 
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Chris M wrote:
> > 
> >>> The only advantage to using network appliances appears to be when
> >>> the vendor has really tweaked the hardware design to match the purpose
> >>> of the system. 
> >> 
> >> Bzzt.  Thanks for playing Nate, tell him what he's won Bob.  Here's your
> >> Rice a Roni.
> >> 
> >> You have really done the NetApp boxes a disservice by characterizing them
> >> solely as an NFS replacement.  That's like calling Claudia Schiffer "not an
> >> ugly goat."
> > 
> > Chris, these kinds of posts provide little to no information, and are
> > quite simply uncalled for.  There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with
> > someone, but at least explain why you disagree.
> 
> It was supposed to be humor. Sorry. Hopefully Nate was just saving
> keystrokes, I've seen his posts before and he's smarter than that. I hope.
> 
> The post that I responded to did the same thing, no information.  And it
> wasn't strictly Linux-related either. And you're picking on *me*?
> 
> Here's more info:
> 
> Nate said:
> ----
> > Like any of the other "network appliances" out there that are replacing
> > the old beloved big iron Unix machines doing the same chores, the price
> > tag can look mighty steep on some of these boxes also... considering
> > that if you set up a proper NFS server it'll do what the NetApp box does
> > just fine.
> ---
> 
> Totally wrong.
> 
> An NFS server does NOT do what a NetApp box does "just fine", not even for
> vanilla NFS.  About 3 seconds on the NetApp web site will tell you this,
> spending 10's of $K will confirm it. NFS servers built on Linux don't let
> you grow the store on the fly, they don't let you take snapshots of the
> state of the disk in real time, they don't let you back up to where you were
> in real time.  NFS is just a protocol, Linux is just an OS that can run it
> with a filesystem that is extremely high-maintenance by comparison. NetApp
> is a specially-tuned box that can talk NFS, it can talk to Windoze box on
> the same network, it can keep track of where it was and get you back there,
> the TCP stack is tuned for storage, etc.  We're not even going into the WAFL
> filesystem or any of the other stuff.  There is no way the differences even
> fit on a page.
> 
> If you think Linux as an NFS server is the same as a NetApp, well, then you
> just spent $25K (minimum cost) for nothing and when your boss finds out
> you're history.
> 
> A gigabit network card in a Linux NFS box is not going to have the
> throughput of a NetApp.  The flexibility, the features, etc are all missing
> too.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug

-- 
Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com>

GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2
Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20000715/7adad341/attachment.pgp>