[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NFS recommendation
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Udi Finkelstein wrote:
Hi,
> > From my experience, it would be a "BAD" idea to tie up between the
> >system partitions and this partition you want to make available to Solaris
> >clients.
> Obviously, the data to be shared will be on a different partition.
Better yet to have the `/' and swap and `/usr' on a completely different
disk, and not on any of the 3 22GB disks.
>
> The question is, is RH5.2 that bad? Is RH6.0 stable enough?
> If performance goes up from 6MB/s to 8MB/s,I'de stay with 6MB/s, if it's
> more stable. If performance is 0.6MB/s, that's a different story...
There is alot more than just raw performance to this claim. RH 6.0 is
stable, IMHO more stable than 5.2.
>
> >didn't implement NFS correctly, like NetApp OS (OnTAP). Network Appliance
> >have fixed it (5.2.1P2 is fixed).
> What has the NetApp got to do with this? I thought it was only an NFS server.
It was an example of incompatibility of commercial products and 2.2.x nfs
implementation.
>
> > If you chose 2.2.x kernels, do not use knfsd yet. It is still in
> >development, and it's not a wise choice till it's stable, since I guess
> >you want to provide a stable environment. Get the latest nfsd server
> >(version 2.2beta40 or newer).
> thanks. Which kernel should I use? should I take 2.2.9, or stick with the
> 2.2.5 distributed withRH6.0?
2.2.9. (there is a fix for it, it has a bug related to ip_options.c)
>
> > Also, the good stuff about the 2.2beta40 (I use beta43) rpc.nfsd is
> >that it can finally run a few servers simulatenously, without disabling
> >(rw) like before. This should improve performance.
> Where can I get it? a freshmeat search for nfsd proved no results.
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes
To save you the trouble, go to:
ftp://ftp.mathematik.th-darmstadt.de/pub/linux/okir/dontuse/
> As for an ATA/66 card, we may get one later, but only because we may need more
> disks. AFAIK, it already has a Linux driver.
I would hardly even attempt to compare the NetApp WAFL file system, and
the NetApp RAID with what you are going to offer. The ATA/33 IDE
controllers and the Linux ext2fs are hardly any match to what NetApp
offers. The avg. seek you get on NetApp due to the nature of WAFL is ~2ms.
The way it writes and reads gives you ALOT of performance improvement on
read/write opperations. So, due to inferior hardware (IDE) and filesystem
(ext2fs), at least try to add some speed (ATA/66).
> thanks,
> Udi
--Ariel
>
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ariel Biener |
| e-mail: ariel@post.tau.ac.il Work phone: 03-6406086 |
| fingerprint = 07 D1 E5 3E EF 6D E5 82 0B E9 21 D4 3C 7D 8B BC |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+