[Beowulf] how fast can NFS run?

[Craig Tierney]

Craig Tierney wrote:

> Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 05:13, Bruce Allen wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> I'd like to know the fastest that anyone has seen an NFS server run, 
>>> over
>>> either a 10Gb/s ethernet link or a handful of link aggregated
>>> (channel-bonded) Gb/s ethernet lines.
>>>
>>> This would be with a small number of clients making large file 
>>> sequential
>>> reads from the same NFS host/server.  Please assume that the NFS server
>>> has 'infinitely fast' disks.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> First, don't hijack threads, can't you guys have any mercy on us with 
>> thread capable e-mail clients? ;-)
>>
>> I do think that you could get NFS up over the 100 MiB/sec mark, but I 
>> also think it would be alot easier with lustre (www.lustre.org) since 
>> then you could use a few GigE connected servers and not depend on 
>> extreme speed and tuning on one single server...
>>  
>>
> Lustre would not be easier.  NFS is supported on virtually all 
> operating systems. Also, it has been around a lot longer and is more 
> stable.  And if you want to do
> something more than read and write large sequential files, you better 
> stick with NFS (or look at
> other less mature distributed filesystems).  Lustre (and most HPC 
> filesystems)

Sorry to follow up my own post.  I meant to say that there are other options
on the market that would provide better data performance than Lustre.  They
are less mature filesystems than NFS.  I didn't mean to imply that Lustre
was mature.

(Rest deleted)

Craig