Excerpts from mail: 10-Feb-94 Re: PC Interconnection usin..
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (492)
> > Actually, NFS scales reasonably well.
> > With 10,000 accounts, we put 1000 accounts on each NFS server,
> > probalistically, only 10% of those are reading or writing a file at a
> time, so the system does just fine.
Where did you put the volumes, like /usr, that every client uses all the time?
We put them on remote virtual disk, a protocol optimized for giving MANY
> clients read-only access to disk blocks.
> We migrated off NFS over the Summer of 1992, not because NFS didn't
> scale, but because managing those 1000 filesystems on each server was a
> nightmare.
> In other words, NFS doesn't scale.
In a different sense of scale, yes. In my original sense, the
technology would not pump the bits across for useful performance. In
your sense, the human effort required to migrate filesystems around as
different users deviated from the probabalistic 'normal curve' was
prohibitive.
-wdc
