Travis Fraser wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 13:09 -0700, Brien Dieterle wrote: > >> Most NFS servers are pitifully slow compared to a local filesystem, >> particularly when dealing with many small files. It pains me to think >> about how slow that might get-- is anyone else using a non-local >> filesystem? >> > I use a Linux-based NAS device that is mounted via NFS. The backups are > not huge (~25GB), but the performance seems fine. The BackupPC server > does have a dedicated connection with a crossover cable to the NAS. > >
The thing most likely to cause speed issues with NFS is the 'sync' option. NFS was designed to survive a server reboot with every operation being completely atomic. This requires every write() to be completely written to disk before being acknowledged as completed, where on your local filesystem it would be permitted to remain in a memory cache for some amount of time before being flushed out to disk. In many cases people prefer to have speed and the same risk of losing data that you would have with local disks if you have a power failure or other machine crash, so they use the async mount option and allow the writes to be buffered. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
