Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail1.trendhosting.net ([195.8.117.5]:43464 "EHLO mail1.trendhosting.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751225AbbASV3V (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:29:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.trendhosting.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C44156B0 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:23:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.trendhosting.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (thp003.trendhosting.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id x8aN5JVH7ZRQ for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:23:44 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <54BD75DF.9010702@pocock.pro> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:23:43 +0100 From: Daniel Pocock MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: storage controllers for use with NFS+BtrFs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I've been looking into the issue of which storage controllers are suitable for use with NFS + BtrFs (or NFS + ZFS) and put some comments about it on my blog[1] today. I understand that for NFS it is generally desirable to have non-volatile write cache if you want good write performance. On the other hand, self-healing file systems (BtrFs and ZFS) like having direct access to disks and those RAID cards with caches don't always give the same level of access to the volume. Can anybody give any practical suggestions about how to reconcile these requirements and experience good NFS write performance onto these filesystems given the type of HBA and RAID cards available? 1. http://danielpocock.com/storage-controllers-for-small-linux-nfs-networks