48GB of DDR2 Registered\ECC Memory? What to do??

[imagoon]

You guys who think a file server couldn't benefit from 48GB of ram haven't ever used freenas, have you?

Default config uses any available memory as a ram disk / cache to speed up reads/writes. Even as an individual user, you can benefit from that.

You would need to define benefit. For a single user 48GB of RAM is bordering on useless. Granted maybe FreeNAS is just that inefficient that it needs that kind of RAM to be a useable product now. I haven't used it in a few revs because I generally got better performance out of Windows.

 

[Topweasel]

You guys who think a file server couldn't benefit from 48GB of ram haven't ever used freenas, have you?

Default config uses any available memory as a ram disk / cache to speed up reads/writes. Even as an individual user, you can benefit from that.

Because a ram cache on server feeding information onto a 1Gb network (also known as 120MB/s). Is so much faster than an HDD or an array feeding information onto a 1Gb network? A 3TB drive alone from the last three years can do copy transfers of up to 160MB/s. The advantage of lots of ram for a cache like that or any server is mostly on the database end. Tons of repetitive information called up over and over again with very little new information. This does away with the seek time. A file server even a media server generally doesn't have information utilized repetitively enough for the server to need any real advanced caching. Pretending it does is just someone who wants to justify ridiculous overkill.

 

[XavierMace]

Because a ram cache on server feeding information onto a 1Gb network (also known as 120MB/s). Is so much faster than an HDD or an array feeding information onto a 1Gb network? A 3TB drive alone from the last three years can do copy transfers of up to 160MB/s. The advantage of lots of ram for a cache like that or any server is mostly on the database end. Tons of repetitive information called up over and over again with very little new information. This does away with the seek time. A file server even a media server generally doesn't have information utilized repetitively enough for the server to need any real advanced caching. Pretending it does is just someone who wants to justify ridiculous overkill.

1) ZFS
2) You assume he's only got 1Gb of connectivity

 

[soccerballtux]

1) ZFS
2) You assume he's only got 1Gb of connectivity

#2 is a valid assumption based on his posting style

 

[Topweasel]

1) ZFS
2) You assume he's only got 1Gb of connectivity

I guess it's time for a question. What does ZFS do to help load non repetitive data quicker to a single user, enough for them to say they benefited from it?

On both ends its still a media issue. Unless ZFS magically makes all multi terabytes worth of data magically appear in the 48GB ram cache as soon as they access it, it still needs be accessed at a given speed on the server and it still needs to be written to the client at the speed it can write at and vice versa. I am not saying running a file server on an atom with 1GB of ram, though it can be done and be pretty compelling. But there is nothing magical enough for a consumer file server to require the kind of equipment we are talking about here.