[Benchmarking] Network connections on Benchmarking machines

[Smith, Michael ERDC-CRREL-NH]

Jeff has already done a lot of tests yesterday over the old hub. The values
compare quite well so I would vote against changing at this point.


On 10/5/09 9:37 AM, "Daniel Morissette" <dmorissette at mapgears.com> wrote:

> 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
>