On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, wessel van der aart wrote:
does anyone here uses nfs without sync in production? does data corrupt
often?
Yes, I use it. If you had an NFS server that regularly died due to hardware
faults, or kernel panics, then I wouldn't consider using it.
all the data send from the
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:02 PM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
The absolute definiton of safe here is quite important. In the event of a
power loss, and a failure of the UPS, quite possibly also followed by a
failure of the RAID battery
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:25 PM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
I think you're right that this is how it should work, I'm just not entirely
sure that's actually generally the case (whether that's because typical
applications try to do sync
On Mar 9, 2011, at 8:44 AM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:02 PM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
The absolute definiton of safe here is quite important. In the event of a
power loss, and a failure of
John Hodrien wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:02 PM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk
wrote:
The absolute definiton of safe here is quite important. In the event
of a power loss, and a failure of the UPS, quite possibly also
followed by a
failure of
On Mar 7, 2011, at 9:55 AM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
1Gbe can do 115MB/s @ 64K+ IO size, but at 4k IO size (NFS) 55MB/s is about
it.
If you need each node to be able to read 90-100MB/s you would need to setup
a cluster file system
On 3/8/11 8:32 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
Why wouldn't you want safe writes? Is that like saying, and if you care for
your data?
You don't fsync every write on a local disk. Why demand it over NFS where the
server is probably less likely to crash than the writing node? That's like
saying you
On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/8/11 8:32 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
Why wouldn't you want safe writes? Is that like saying, and if you care for
your data?
You don't fsync every write on a local disk. Why demand it over NFS where
the
server is
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
The OP wanted 90MB/s per node and we have no clue whether the application he
is using is capable of driving 1MB block sizes.
I thought he wanted 90MB/s reads per node (and I've demonstrated that's doable
with NFS). The only reason I'm not showing it
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
Well on my local disk I don't cache the data of tens or hundreds of clients
and a server can have a memory fault and oops just as easily as any client.
Also I believe it doesn't sync every single write (unless mounted on the
client sync which is only
thanks for all the response , really gives me a good idea where to pay
attention to.
the software we're using to distribute our renders is RoyalRender, i'm not
sure if any optimization is possible, i'll check it out.
so far it seems that the option of using nfs stands or falls with he use
of
On 3/8/2011 3:14 PM, wessel van der aart wrote:
the software we're using to distribute our renders is RoyalRender, i'm not
sure if any optimization is possible, i'll check it out.
so far it seems that the option of using nfs stands or falls with he use
of sync.
does anyone here uses nfs
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:25 PM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
Well on my local disk I don't cache the data of tens or hundreds of clients
and a server can have a memory fault and oops just as easily as any client.
Also I believe it doesn't
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:02 PM, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
The absolute definiton of safe here is quite important. In the event of a
power loss, and a failure of the UPS, quite possibly also followed by a
failure of the RAID battery you'll get data loss, as some writes won't be
Hi All,
I've been asked to setup a 3d renderfarm at our office , at the start it
will contain about 8 nodes but it should be build at growth. now the
setup i had in mind is as following:
All the data is already stored on a StorNext SAN filesystem (quantum )
this should be mounted on a centos
Hi :)
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:12 PM, wessel van der aart
wes...@postoffice.nl wrote:
Hi All,
I've been asked to setup a 3d renderfarm at our office , at the start it
will contain about 8 nodes but it should be build at growth. now the
setup i had in mind is as following:
All the data is
On Mar 7, 2011, at 6:12 AM, wessel van der aart wes...@postoffice.nl wrote:
Hi All,
I've been asked to setup a 3d renderfarm at our office , at the start it
will contain about 8 nodes but it should be build at growth. now the
setup i had in mind is as following:
All the data is already
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Ross Walker wrote:
1Gbe can do 115MB/s @ 64K+ IO size, but at 4k IO size (NFS) 55MB/s is about
it.
If you need each node to be able to read 90-100MB/s you would need to setup
a cluster file system using iSCSI or FC and make sure the cluster file
system can handle large
18 matches
Mail list logo
