Sander, It depends, if you are looking for performance, definately SAN. iSCSI might have a better performance over GNBD. I found this on google <a href="http://www.bwbug.org/docs/RedHat-GNBD-Ethernet-SAN.pdf"> http://www.bwbug.org/docs/RedHat-GNBD-Ethernet-SAN.pdf</a> It has some detais about GFS on SAN and on GNBD, It might help though.3 Good Luck and keep us posted. Att. FTM <div> On 4/26/06, Sander van Beek - Elexis <<a href="mailto:sander@elexis.nl">sander@elexis.nl</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi all, We did a quick benchmark on our 2 node rhel4 testcluster with gfs and a gnbd storage server. The results were very sad. One of the nodes (p3 1ghz, 512 mb) could run +/- 2400 insert queries per second when running mysqld-max 5.0.20 on a local ext3 filesystem. With a 2 node GFS over GNBD setup and inserts on both nodes at the same time, we only could do 80 inserts per second. I'm very interested in the perfomance others got in a similar setup. Would the performance increase when we use software based iscsi instead of gnbd? Or should we simply buy SAN equipment? Does anyone have statistics to compare a standalone mysql setup to a small gfs cluster using a san? With best regards, Sander van Beek --------------------------------------- Ing. S. van Beek Elexis Marketing 9 6921 RE Duiven The Netherlands Tel: +31 (0)26 7110329 Mob: +31 (0)6 28395109 Fax: +31 (0)318 611112 Email: <a href="mailto:sander@elexis.nl">sander@elexis.nl</a> Web: <a href="http://www.elexis.nl">http://www.elexis.nl</a> -- Linux-cluster mailing list <a href="mailto:Linux-cluster@redhat.com">Linux-cluster@redhat.com </a> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster</a> </blockquote></div>