Ouch.. that would totally kill us here.
We have four types of programs:
CPU hogs that just eat up cpu time but don't do much with file access
or communications.
NFS hogs, that load huge files off NFS shares and then process them
(We are talking 4TB here)
Communication hogs that are chatty as all get out but don't do much
with files (GA and such)
And scripts that run tons of local commands on data.
We had to go with a generic approach. Plus our NFS daemons already
get hung pretty easily so we try and reduce the NFS load as much as
we can.
On Nov 21, 2005, at 10:38 AM, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brady Catherman wrote:
| My experience with NFS mounted roots is that they can bombard your
| network with packets. A simple little script can manage to generate
| enough traffic to actually slow down other services just by hitting
| tons of services. Plus if you have spoolers and such you end up
| generating a ton of traffic or memory. The advantage to a local
install
| is that you can cut down on the network traffic drastically.
Granted,
| if your applications are all embarrassingly parallel and don't
do a ton
| of disk IO then NFS root works great.. Many of the applications
we use
| here would utterly destroy the network if run from a NFS mounted
root..
| The advantage of rebuilding is consistency without the
disadvantage of
| NFS roots.
That's why you should have a separate 100Mb network for NFS traffic
and
other crap like that, then have a 1Gb network for your actual
calculations, MPI traffic, etc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDghRCXVaO67S1rtsRAlpkAJ4vs6ROMe1TF4IcwNoyANTMtDjmfQCgwcGI
xzSx4qUzq2cLje32i0DD0hw=
=Ps1N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[email protected] mailing list
--
[email protected] mailing list
