[Benchmarking] Network connections on Benchmarking machines

[Daniel Morissette]

I agree with the choice of the better hub, since in my opinion comparing 
dedicated spatial db server over network vs shapefiles on local disk is 
closer to real life usage. I don't think shapefiles over NFS is a common 
usage scenario but could be wrong of course.

Daniel


Paul Ramsey wrote:
> I think the better hub is a better bet. NFS won't really level the
> playing fields as the VFS will just end up caching stuff on the client
> side of the connection after a while anyways.
> 
> P
> 
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Smith, Michael ERDC-USACE-NH
> <michael.smith at usace.army.mil> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> While copying some files today I realized that the router on the
>> benchmarking machines is a 100BaseT router, not a gigabit router. I do have
>> a gigabit router I can switch out with the current one. Or another thought
>> would be to move the shape files to the benchdb machine and connect over
>> nfs. This would eliminate the network as a variable between the different
>> back ends.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Smith
>> RSGIS Center
>> US Army Corps of Engineers
>> w: (603) 646-4765
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Benchmarking mailing list
>> Benchmarking at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/benchmarking
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Benchmarking mailing list
> Benchmarking at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/benchmarking


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/