Google has Local Hard Drives or NAS Hard Drives? (Score 1)

Rackspace uses local hard drives on each machine - while Google use NAS network attached storage. So Rackspace your hard-drive accesses (database accesses) are going through a SATA controller or such - and with Google your accesses are going through a network controller which is much slower. Makes a big difference especially for database driven apps such as all websites are these days. Are Google's hard drives accessed locally over a SATA interface or over a Network NAS interface? I would think that local storage is always better? See here for stats: http://blog.cfelde.com/2011/05/performance-rackspace-cloud-vs-amazon-web-services/ >>> "And this is where the first big difference shows. From my understanding, Rackspace uses RAID 10 with locally located hard drives... EBS on the other hand is network attached storage. So the first test is raw write speed. Using the dd command as shown below, running it three times in a row on each server gave the following results: Rackspace having an average write speed of 290 MB/s and Amazon only 81 MB/s. "