--pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In the meantime, I recommend periodically poking your head into the CS dept. sysadmin office and complaining that NFS is slow. They love it when you do that. :-) Mike On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 09:09:51AM -0600, David Smith wrote: > Here's the explanation for the CS slowness. Our file server (which runs= =20 > both NFS and Samba) has some hardware problems. We've tried every=20 > possible configuration option known to man, including tracing through=20 > the kernel source code. The slow-down during the CS 124 final was=20 > amplified by the fact that their exam submission script was inefficient= =20 > and caused our LDAP servers to also take a serious hit. We can't simply= =20 > take down the machine during the middle of the semester and install a=20 > new one since it's our most mission critical machine. Even a reboot=20 > could cost us several hours of down-time for fsck'ing. We can't afford=20 > that. We have about 200 Linux NFS clients hitting the NFS server and=20 > about 150 Windows Samba clients hitting the same server at any given=20 > time. We are currently testing a brand new server that will replace the= =20 > current file server. My stress tests thus far have been very positive.=20 > It's a 4-CPU (hyperthreaded) Xeon 2Ghz box with 15,000 RPM SCSI drives. >=20 > What I can tell you about Samba vs. NFS: The SMB protocol requires a=20 > pretty beafy box because it does a lot of computation. NFS is just raw=20 > UDP traffic that uses RPC. Not much computation involved there. If I had= =20 > a large deployment of Linux boxes, I would not use Samba to mount shares= =20 > between the machines. I would definitely go with NFS. >=20 > --Dave >=20 > Kekoa Vincent wrote: >=20 > >I would like to know which would be faster in a mounted environment. I > >hear Samba could offer better performance. I think in the Talmage labs > >they connect to a NFS server(I dunno), and during CS142 finals it was > >way frustrating, because when basically every computer in the building > >is using the network drive the system(network? i dunno) was painfully > >slow. I don't know if this is NFS or what, but I remember how it was > >the worst. Although I'll never be using more than 8 computers on my > >network, it would be nice to know what I should actually use for the > >best performance(mainly speed) to mount my Linux boxes(I'll run Samba > >for the windows ones). I'd appreciate any opinions, or other alternate > >suggestions. > >=20 > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group=20 > http://uug.byu.edu/=20 > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list --=20 ------------------------------------------- | --------------------- Michael Halcrow | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, IBM Linux Technology Center | =20 | Don't buy what you can't pay for. But when | it comes to software, don't pay for what | you can't buy. | ------------------------------------------- | --------------------- GnuPG Keyprint: 05B5 08A8 713A 64C1 D35D 2371 2D3C FDDA 3EB6 601D --pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+32fTLTz92j62YB0RAvT7AKDUlZpnpXDrVQ58Si3M9PfBqo5/kgCghpps YQTYRS7CGyYU5ysR/flig/s= =5Egr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pvezYHf7grwyp3Bc--
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
