* Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-20 14:49]: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:36:29PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-20 00:36]: > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > > I don't think NFS/AFS is that good an idea; you'll need very beefy > > > > > fileservers and a fast network. > > > > > > > > NFS may actually be useful; if you really need the files in one > > > > directory space for management/updates that's a way to do it (i.e. > > > > mount all the various storage servers by NFS on a management > > > > station/ftp server/whatever). > > > > > > Something like that might be a very good idea, yes. Just don't try to > > > serve everything directly off NFS. > > > > there is nothing wrong with serving directly from NFS. > > Really? You have a lot more experience in this area, so I will defer to > you if you are sure, but it seems to me that in the sort of system I > explicitly assumed (something like a web farm), serving everything off > NFS would involve either very expensive hardware or be rather slow.
no. cache works. reads are no problem whatsoever in this kind of setup (well. I am sure you can make that a problem with many frontend servers and lots to read. obviously. but for any sane number of frontends, should not) -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
