View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Randseed Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Apr 2004 Posts: 111
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:52 am Post subject: Someone recommend a decent networked filesystem PLEASE. |
|
|
Here's my basic setup:
- Office LAN connected to the net with a cable modem.
- Laptop connected from random points on the net over an OpenVPN network to the office.
- Several different filesystems I need to mount on the laptop and the LAN.
NFS works, but it's slower than shit from a constipated monkey on a cold Antarctic evening. There are also a few phantom errors that arise both randomly and, far more predictably, when there's a lot of file accesses on a filesystem. I basically want to dump it.
All I really want is a networked filesystem that does a decent job with synching stuff offline, as in the case of the laptop. There should be no major consistency problems since there should never be file modifications that happen between laptop mounts. I'm the only person who touches the files. I also want it to be reasonably efficient. NFS seems to have some kind of really disgusting overhead that I just can't tolerate.
I looked at Coda, but the support is nonexistant, the documentation absolutely horrible, and I couldn't get it to work anyway.
So anyway, from people with experience in these things, is there a production quality filesystem out there that, well, actually WORKS? AFS? GFS? What? And where do I get it and a HOWTO?
[/list] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
phdfreddied n00b
Joined: 27 Jun 2004 Posts: 15
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: SMB+XFS |
|
|
You don't like NFS?
Try using SMB, which can be properly mounted as an FS on the guest machine, and XFS as your core FS. SMB works well, quite quickly and doesn't fsck around. XFS is fast and useful, but sucks as far as recovery, but it's fast as hell (Reiserv4 has journaling but is a bit slower). Don't bother with that obscure crap, KISS for once.
Freddie[/code] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
angoraspruce Apprentice
Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Posts: 193 Location: Minnesota, USA
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: Someone recommend a decent networked filesystem PLEASE. |
|
|
Randseed wrote: |
NFS works, but it's slower than shit from a constipated monkey on a cold Antarctic evening. There are also a few phantom errors that arise both randomly and, far more predictably, when there's a lot of file accesses on a filesystem. |
When you say slow, could you provide a few estimated numbers. I use NFS, and the few times I've found it to be slow have proved to be a matter of poor NIC's or due to configuration. I'm not an expert, so I can't trouble shoot things for you, but if you prime the pump with a few numbers (estimated or otherwise), maybe some of the experts will have something to go with and offer possible solutions. In addition, listing the exact wording of the "phantom errors", and explaining why they're "phantom", might also help.
FWIW, my hunch is that fixing NFS might be a more efficient option.
Best regards |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randseed Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Apr 2004 Posts: 111
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:31 am Post subject: Re: Someone recommend a decent networked filesystem PLEASE. |
|
|
angoraspruce wrote: | Randseed wrote: |
NFS works, but it's slower than shit from a constipated monkey on a cold Antarctic evening. There are also a few phantom errors that arise both randomly and, far more predictably, when there's a lot of file accesses on a filesystem. |
When you say slow, could you provide a few estimated numbers. I use NFS, and the few times I've found it to be slow have proved to be a matter of poor NIC's or due to configuration. I'm not an expert, so I can't trouble shoot things for you, but if you prime the pump with a few numbers (estimated or otherwise), maybe some of the experts will have something to go with and offer possible solutions. In addition, listing the exact wording of the "phantom errors", and explaining why they're "phantom", might also help.
FWIW, my hunch is that fixing NFS might be a more efficient option.
Best regards |
If I sit here right next to my wireless access point, which I can get transfer rates of well over 400k/s over, and try to NFS a 60MB file from my laptop to my fileserver, the entire system gets very sluggish, and the transfer takes a hell of a lot longer than the time it should. But it's something I can deal with, except for the sluggishness. That's inexcusable.
A bigger problem arose when I created a third networked filesystem on my fileserver. After a lot of file accesses, the networked client app on my side (e.g., bittorrent) will lock up. The syslog will show an NFS error "116," accesses will return "NFS: stale file handle", and a "df" returns this:
Quote: | df: `mountpoint': Value too large for defined data type |
The syslog error is this:
Quote: | nfs_statfs: statfs error = 116 |
Nothing appears in the syslog of the server.
The mount options on the client are: Code: | noauto,soft,timeo=30,user,_netdev,rsize=1300,wsize=1300 |
The export options on the server are:
Code: | (rw,async,no_subtree_check) |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|