On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
..
> either Coda or NFS. I've got my /home exported too, and is mounted via NFS
> by only one client, and so far performance has been okay but nothing
> great. I presume that if I upgrade my server's hard drive (it's currently
> a 7200RPM UDMA2 IDE, thinking in the future of SCSI RAID, 10000RPM drives)
..
That won't help. You will bottleneck on the network interface WAY before
you bottleneck on disk I/O. You're better off with a drive than can do
very fast random seek (note: the new Seagate Barracuda 18XL 7200rpm drives
have a 5.9ms random seek time, which is WAY better than
previous-generation 10000rpm Cheetahs) because NFS performs a lot of
synchronous I/O by design. It's inevitable that you'll get better
performance with a caching filesystem like Coda or SMB than with NFS due
to the restriction of having atomic, synchronous I/O in NFS.
If you really need good network-attached filesystem performance, a
dedicated file server such as a NetApp (I understand these things can now
be had for under $1000) will give way better performance than a
general-purpose UNIX box tweaked as a file server.
-
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
