[Beowulf] how large of an installation have people used NFS with? would 300 mounts kill performance?
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.
Rahul Nabar rpnabar at gmail.comThu Sep 10 08:19:50 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] how large of an installation have people used NFS with? would 300 mounts kill performance?
- 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 ]
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Joe Landman <landman at scalableinformatics.com> wrote: > Rahul Nabar wrote: > >> If not NFS then Lustre etc options do exist. But the more I read about >> those the more I am convinced that those open another big can of >> worms. Besides, if NFS would work I do not want to switch. > > You might also want to look at GlusterFS. Thanks Joe! From all the reports and advice it seems I'll start with NFS and a good muscular storage device and then if NFS fails under load move to glusterfc, lustre etc. Per se there seems no way of knowing if NFS will keep up or not a priori. -- Rahul
- Previous message: [Beowulf] how large of an installation have people used NFS with? would 300 mounts kill performance?
- 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
