[Beowulf] NFS server for a small cluster
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Skylar Thompson skylar at cs.earlham.eduWed Sep 9 21:10:23 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] NFS server for a small cluster
- Next message: [Beowulf] how large of an installation have people used NFS with? would 300 mounts kill performance?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mark Hahn wrote: > extra ram doesn't help a fileserver much except when you can read-cache > effectively (either file contents or metadata.) I wouldn't sweat cache > size, and probably not ram size either (unless your working set really > is < 8GB.) > _______________________________________________ One thing extra RAM can buy a file server is aggregating writes into contiguous blocks. I'm not sure what the sweet spot as far as RAM size is, and I suspect strongly that the effect is dependent on the number and size of your files, so your YMMV. -- -- Skylar Thompson (skylar at cs.earlham.edu) -- http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~skylar/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://www.scyld.com/pipermail/beowulf/attachments/20090909/b60f8eb0/signature.bin
- Previous message: [Beowulf] NFS server for a small cluster
- Next message: [Beowulf] how large of an installation have people used NFS with? would 300 mounts kill performance?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
