Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: George Neuner <gneuner2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:26:35 -0400
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:06:45 +0200, Andreas Davour
<anteRUN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@xxxxxxxx> writes:
On Sep 29, 5:23 pm, Andreas Davour <ante...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Did the VLM drop support for the LMFS? Too bad. NFS sucks so it couldn't
be worse than that.
I forget when, but I remember benchmarking (I think) a 3670 which had
slower performance to its local disk than a 3/120 did accessing
storage over NFS. (Both disks were Fuji eagles, the NFS access was via
a 3/180 or /280 and thickwire).
Yup, NFS sucks all right.
I have no idea what a 3/120 is.
A Sun 3 workstation. It was a relatively low powered 68020 system,
woefully short of RAM but with a fast network interface. I can attest
that NFS from a 3/120 to a fast server was frequently faster than
local file access.
I don't recall the 3/120 being offered generally though ... I thought
Sun only sold that particular version to colleges.
Talking about I/O performance in detail is a big can of worms, since it
means subtle interaction between hardware and software.
Yup. Waste of time unless you can isolate the component you're
talking about.
George
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: Tim Bradshaw
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- References:
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: kodifik
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- From: Tim Bradshaw
- Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- Prev by Date: Re: compiling a Lisp source to exe
- Next by Date: Re: compiling a Lisp source to exe
- Previous by thread: Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- Next by thread: Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|