h a l f b a k e r y"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
In the quest for low-latency storage on a $10 budget (just
for fun), the proposed idea uses a farm of obsolete
computers. Each computer would be configured with a
near-minimal installation of an open-source operating
system and a RAM drive (of perhaps a half gig or a gig)
configured as an iSCSI
target. The machines would be
wired together on a 100MB switch (because Gigabit doesn't
give you appreciably faster latency and because 100MB is
getting cheap). A master host machine would have each of
the iSCSI targets partitioned as "physical" volumes for a
logical volume group. The group would then be partitioned
with one logical volume spanning the sum of them.
(Striping wouldn't make a lot of sense since they'd be
competing for the host's network bandwidth.... unless link
aggregation or a gigabit NIC is involved).
I might actually do this in my garage and see what
happens.
It's the Latency, Stupid
http://rescomp.stan.../rants/Latency.html
If you have latency (on drives or networks), you're stuck with it. [kevinthenerd, Jun 01 2012]
[link]
|
| |
You realize that's it's actually 100Mb, as in megabits,
translating to 12.5 megabytes per second? Even the
slowest hard drives you can currently buy can do
several times that speed. |
|
| |
I'm chasing latency, not bandwidth. If you'd like, a
single 1Gb connection would give you 125MB/s, and
six of them aggregated would give you SATA-3
bandwidth (ignoring all of the protocol overheads in a
slapdash comparison). The latency wouldn't improve,
unfortunately. |
|
| |