I have a very different experience with NFS: we are using Gigabit Ethernet, and
a 64bit RHEL6 clone with ECC memory as a file server; it has RAID1 ext4 home
directories and RAID6 ext4 for synchrotron data. We have had zero performance
or reliability problems with this in a computer lab with ~
We have a very similar setup, and I can only second Kay's experience.
Best regards,
Dirk.
Am 31.07.13 13:36, schrieb Kay Diederichs:
I have a very different experience with NFS: we are using Gigabit Ethernet, and
a 64bit RHEL6 clone with ECC memory as a file server; it has RAID1 ext4 home
We don't have any performance/ reliability issues with our cheapskate setup
either.
Make sure the network is wired with Cat5e or Cat6 cables, especially if
distances are 8m+
Dmitry
On 2013-07-31, at 7:36 AM, Kay Diederichs wrote:
I have a very different experience with NFS: we are
- 287783
and rob...@well.ox.ac.uk Fax: (+44) - 1865 - 287547
Original message
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:36:59 +0100
From: CCP4 bulletin board CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK (on behalf of Kay Diederichs
kay.diederi...@uni-konstanz.de)
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Advise on setting up
@JISCMAIL.AC.UK (on behalf of Kay
Diederichs kay.diederi...@uni-konstanz.de)
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Advise on setting up/ maintaining a Ubuntu cluster
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
I have a very different experience with NFS: we are using Gigabit Ethernet,
and a 64bit RHEL6 clone with ECC memory as a file
Dear Sergei,
Second point is probably easier to do. An alternative to NFS is sshfs. The
advantage is that it uses SSH which is installed by default and configured the
same way. If you generate key pairs you can use ssh or sshfs without a password.
Check this page below;
Be careful that running data intensive jobs over NFS
is super slow (at least an order of magnitude compared
to writing things on a local disk).
Not only the computation is slow, but you may be slowing down
all other users of the cluster too...
F.
On 07/30/2013 11:28 PM, Adam Ralph wrote:
Dear
