Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 04/02/2012 12:39 AM, Felix Frank wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/01/2012 11:57 PM, Arnold Krille wrote: >> Its not the "network layer in drbd", its "the sending buffer, the >> switch, the receiving buffer, the remote disk latency, the sending >> buffer, the switch, the receiving buffer" of DRBD with protocol C. > > if your DRBD setup comprises a switch (and hence probably lots of > DRBD-unrelated traffice on the same NIC), the performance issues are > well deserved punishment you're getting. > > Whenever possible, DRBD should use a dedicated back-to-back link. > Buffers should not pose much of an issue then, either. > > Regards, > Felix I always use switches, and I don't think it's fair to say using switches is, itself, dumb. Now to play the other side; I never have trouble with DRBD hurting performance, so saying that DRBD is a performance killer is also not fair. Arnold, Your personal experience may tell you otherwise, but think about it; If DRBD caused such tremendous performance hit, do you think others would use it? Of course not. You dismissed one of the DRBD devs out of hand... If you want to resolve your issues, you might want to be a bit more open to admitting you have something to learn. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com