Am Donnerstag, 13. Mai 2004 21:51 schrieb Luciano Andino: > All works great in this config but... I add 5 new machines that are 180 > meters away from my LAN, in a another building. > Solution was bridging "two" networks with a pair of Linksys WAP54G bridges: > [snipped ascii arts] > > Every time machine boots, I receive "nfs server not responding, still > trying", althought it can boot, it is due to network congestion (or packet > loss in air).
NFS is very picky about networking, it seems. > I would like to get more performance in that new machines, I thought to add > a Linux router+nfs+tft to server only the new machines, and for secure the > Lan that has the machine where users has their accounts. This new machine > will server > the kernel and filesystem for that 5 machine in one interface and provide a > connection to the bigger Lan (in this case 192.168.0.0 the bigger network > and 192.168.1.0 for the remote's machines). That's a good idea. I would physically separate the wireless from the two wired segments, like this first_lan ---- wire/switch/etc ----[eth0] server1(thick) [eth1]---- AP1 AP2 ---- [eth1] server2 [eth0] ---- wire/switch/etc --- second lan This should keep bandwith utilization on the wireless link (which is not fullduplex, and congestion has much worse impact than on 100Base networking) restricted to the minimal necessary. You would setup NFS for /opt/ltsp/i386, tftpd and dhcpd on server2 separately (you could use rsync to keep /opt/ltsp/i386 in sync, or so, but that is not really necessary once it all is working) and setup the server to be queried for X to the IP of server1. You will need three IP subnets for that subnet (the AP must be on a subnet separately), but there's a lot of free addresses for local usage. > With this, I think I would get more performance if I reduce MTU for > remote's machine if my problem is packet loss, so nfs and kdm connections > will perform better, but I remember that a long time ago, I did it that and > then receive a "Fragmented kernel". Maybe playing with rsize/wsize in nfs > mounts wolud help. I also add security and reduce innecesary traffic in the > wireless segment (if all is the same network). For security, it would be *very* reasonable to ipsec all traffic on the wireless link (which should be not too hard, there's docs and all), if you think WEP/WPA is untrustworthy. I do think that, but I'm to lazy yet to setup something "sophisticated" on my home network right now. This is more an administrative decision than a technical one - it can be done encrypted or unencrypted. Well, if you have no crypt, for the server2 an old box should be fully sufficient as serving those services to a handful of clients does not really eat ressources. > Do you think it can be a good solution? is there another one? I hope to have outlined something reasonable. I'm open for comments and improvements though. Might be I'll have to setup something similar in more the near than the far future :-) Regards, Anselm ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest 6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click _____________________________________________________________________ Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net
