[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       toasters
Subject:    RE: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they sti
From:       Art Hebert <art () arzoon ! com>
Date:       2002-03-31 8:11:40
[Download RAW message or body]



I did a 100MB copy clustered and non clustered and I saw a 15% hit due to
having to
copy the nvram. But the clustering is very valuable, I just showed our ceo
how it works 
and he was quite happy. He was in helping us do some computer room work.

art

-----Original Message-----
From: kevin graham [mailto:kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:44 PM
To: Art Hebert
Cc: 'toasters@mathworks.com'
Subject: RE: Cluster licenses -- what if I break the cluster will they
sti ll w ork?



> I thought the license keys were different for every machine. Are you
saying
> I can use the license key for one machine on another. Aren't they tied to
> serialnumbers?

AFAIK, no.

> Anybody else out there with a cluster, what does is listed when you run
> license on each head?

Now that I look, both heads of my cluster have the same license keys. I'm
not sure if that's intentional, or the same lazy case mentioned
previously. Ugh.

> I figure we will get a 15% improvement in performance if I break the
> heads. How much performance improvement have people seen when they have
> moved from 100mb to gig?

Haven't had a chance to compare them side to side, but the gige's are
preferable even for equivalent traffic given some of the extras, such as
checksum offloading, jumbo framing (if you can use it) and interrupt
coalescing.

Where are you extracting the 15% number though? (and how is the 100:1000mb
related?)

..kg..

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]