On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 06/01/2012 10:26 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:36 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com
wrote:
On 06/01/12 2:27 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
I believe that unfsd (http://unfs3.sourceforge.net/ ) now does have multi-threaded capability and as such should be fairly well scalable. I
am
using it on CentOS 6.2 and it seems to become all but unusable when
more
then 3-4 users connect to it. Is that normal? What sort of experience
have
other people had?
yeesh, wtf ?
latest version: 0.9.22 2009-01-05WHY?!??! what problem is this supposed to solve over the built in native Linux NFS, which supports a lot more than just NFSv3?
maybe in 2003, when Linux NFS was sketchy, this made sense.
-- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast
John,
The native NFS only supports the local file system (on the local disk). What we have here is an NFS gateway to a distributed file system, in our case MooseFS ( http://www.moosefs.org/ ).
You might take a look at GlusterFS for your distributed file system if most of your nodes are on the same 100mbit or 1Gbit network. GlusterFS is the new "big thing" that Red Hat is going to support and we use it on the CentOS infrastructure and like it quite well. It is also very easy to maintain and you can mount it via the glusterfs client or via NFS. It does not work real well across a slower internet like in multiple datacenters, but if your machines are all on a fast network with each other, I highly recommend it.
John,
I agree with you that GlusterFS is not bad - though neither is MooseFs, based on all accounts, and MooseFS is very simple and lightweight, which was why we chose it. At any rate, at this point this is what we are using. All we need is an NFS gateway that would scale to 10-20 sessions without losing too much performance.
And yes, it could be that it is my MooseFS that is underperforming - I am studying that possibility too.
Thanks!
Boris.