On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 02:28 +0200, guenther wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:20 -0400, Keith Hanlan wrote: > > If I were to build garnome and install it on an NFS mount, would the > > resulting performance suffer greatly? In this environment, the NFS > > servers and network are top-end industrial - but they're not going to be > > as good as local filesystem access. > > Due to a lack of resources I never tried this... ;)
I have though :) > Seriously, of course this all depends on your network and server > infrastructure. With all locally running apps and a network storage for > the $prefix only, I wouldn't expect a huge performance drop, given a > fast network and servers. However, please note that I do not have a lot > of experience with this. Depends. If your NFS mount is /home on the client box, and you're not using any sort of extended attributes -- bits of GARNOME work quite well over NFS. Beagle, for example -- sucks performance wise when started from NFS for some reason, I don't use it on a regular basis though, so i've never had the inkling to figure out why this is. Evolution, on the other hand -- works quite well with a SMTP-TLS and POP3/Pop-Before-SMTP setup as a client from NFS on my primary workstation (2.0.x from Ubuntu Warty Warthog) and my other desktop (2.6.1 from GARNOME) Evolution, on NFS with IMAP -- has many of the same caveats as Evolution with IMAP without NFS -- it's fragile, but operational :) > > We're using RHEL4 which is distributing Evolution 2.0.2 and I want to > > provide an updated version (2.6.1) without having to update the 100+ > > desktops themselves. Personally, i'd recommend backing up the .evolution directory before running 2.6.x for the first time -- just to be sure nothing from the big-bump-in-major-versions(tm) throws you a curve. Hope that helps, Paul -- garnome-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/garnome-list
