Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Irithori
We have various NFS shares mounted on to a couple of different servers and I am wondering about efficiency. The current situation is Code: /data/ avatars (Exported and mounted remotely) ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Penguin of trust elija's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Either at home or at work or down the pub
    Posts
    3,639

    NFS Efficiency


    We have various NFS shares mounted on to a couple of different servers and I am wondering about efficiency.

    The current situation is

    Code:
    /data/
        avatars    (Exported and mounted remotely)
            user1
            user2
            ... snip ...
            user100000
        file-store  (Exported and mounted remotely)
            user1
            user2
            ... snip ...
            user100000
        images     (Exported and mounted remotely)
            user1
            user2
            ... snip ...
            user100000
    I'm wondering if the following is better or not?


    Code:
    /data/    (Exported and mounted remotely)
        avatars    
            user1
            user2
            ... snip ...
            user100000
        file-store
            user1
            user2
            ... snip ...
            user100000
        images
            user1
            user2
            ... snip ...
            user100000
    Ultimately, I'm pushing for something like storing the files locally and using inotifyd for synchronisation which I think would be better than either of the above
    "I used to be with it, then they changed what it was.
    Now what was it isn't it, and what is it is weird and scary to me.
    It'll happen to you too."

    Grandpa Simpson



    The Fifth Continent

  2. #2
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    19
    i think the second will be better instead of exporting three

  3. #3
    Trusted Penguin Irithori's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    3,425
    I would keep the separation of the three exports as each has its specific purpose (judging from the name).
    Then, if the situation calls for it, then you can relatively simple offload these three exports to a nfs server each.
    Which would also lessen the impact of the downtime of one of those machines to the nfs service as a whole.
    (e.g. only avatars are unavailabe. The rest is working.)
    Also processing is more specific. On a file-store nfs machine will be only file-store related cronjobs, etc.

    About inotify aka csync2 + lsyncd combination:
    Possible, but needs
    - careful setup, especially with more than two nodes and in an "all can write" mode:
    Two nodes change the same file at the same time. Who wins?
    - periodic "full syncs", to be sure that really all files are on each machine. Think network issues, one machine getīs rebooted, etc
    - monitoring of the syncs

    Tbh, with lsyncd I would go so far to build a slave nfs machine, that I can use for a quick service recovery.
    Aka: A master syncs to a slave, end of story.
    elija likes this.
    You must always face the curtain with a bow.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #4
    Penguin of trust elija's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Either at home or at work or down the pub
    Posts
    3,639
    Thanks. Lots of food for thought here.
    "I used to be with it, then they changed what it was.
    Now what was it isn't it, and what is it is weird and scary to me.
    It'll happen to you too."

    Grandpa Simpson



    The Fifth Continent

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •