On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 11:09 -0400, Kwan Lowe wrote:
> > Since you're starting to explore the exciting world of networking, you might
> > be interested in checking out NFS and Samba--two common ways of setting up
> > file shares in Linux. Samba uses an implementation of the Windows network
> > protocol and is best suited for environments that use both Windows and Linux
> > boxen. However, Samba is probably best avoided on an all-Linux network like
> > yours since it tends to be less efficient than NFS.
>
> I'd be interested in benchmarks that support this... CIFS itself is pretty
> efficient; and even using Samba on a Linux to Linux share works well.
>
I'll run some here when I get a chance. This was true in our case
though and I don't have my results from when we ran tests in the
beginning. Our renderfarm nodes (122 linux nodes) were talking to the
file servers (linux) that ran samba to windows XP animation
workstations. There was soooo much overhead on both ends (even with
smb.conf optimizations...oplocks nodelay buffers cache sizes etc) that
we set up a separate nfs export for just the renderfarm nodes. Transfer
speeds improved significantly and cpu load time went way down.
> > A downside to NFS is
> > that clients become grumpy when an NFS server that is mounted suddenly goes
> > down.
>
> This can depend on whether it's hard or soft mounted.
What do you typically set your timeo and retry to?? What have you found
are the ups and downs of soft mounting??
Mike Branda Jr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:23:04 EDT