Re: modern cheap NAS fully supported by Debian?
On 27 Jul 2012, at 08:34, Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 22:16 +0100, mick wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:47:47 +0100
>> Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 20:39 +0100, mick wrote:
>>>> Depends what you mean by "fast". But in real world usage (pulling a
>>>> video file from store) it is about three times faster than an NSLU2.
>>>> Consider the following tests using scp to grab a 1.1 GB video file
>>>> (so some overhead in the encryption as opposed to a straight wire
>>>> copy)
>>>
>>> In my experience the encryption and other overheads from ssh are a bit
>>> more than 'some'. Just tested a big file copy from my Sheevaplug and I
>>> get 6MB/s from scp, and 38MB/s over nfs.
>>>
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Yep - but both devices were treated the same.
>>
>> The point is the comparison between the two devices. The slug has a
>> slow CPU, little memory and slow networking hardware. The DNS is
>> faster (but not, I'll concede, "fast").
>
> True. I guess the point I was thinking of is that when using ssh things
> may well be limited by CPU performance, which, if the usecase you care
> about is a NAS using say nfa, then something with a slower CPU but
> better i/o (disk, network) may be more suitable.
>
> I'm not saying that this is the case for the devices under discussion,
> just putting it forward as a consideration.
Even powerful modern x86 boxes are still CPU bound with scp so as Tixy says adding scp to the mix complicates the testing.
For example I get roughly USB2 wire-speed (30mb/s ish) from my iconnect over iscsi, AoE or nfs but much slower if I use scp or rsync over ssh.
--
Sent from a mobile device
Tim Fletcher
Reply to: