FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-15-2008, 01:07 AM
 
Default an efficient network file system on slow connection, which one to choose?

Hello. I am trying to find out what's the best network file system (in
general, like afs, coda, nfs, cifs) fits. We have our two offices
connected to each other through a connection average at 15 to 20 KB/s
with ping-delay less than 100ms and sharing files on the server in one
of the office.

Currently we use NFS, but it's unacceptably latent ("ls" takes 6
seconds, so does opening and saving a file). It seems to be protocol
overhead because even small directories and small files take 6 seconds
to open. By "latent", I don't know how to describe this better, I mean,
for example, if we do a cp, we are satisfied at how long time it takes
to transfer the file, but not satisfied with the time it awaits before
the transfer starts.

I guess what we need is a network FS that:

1. cache as much as possible and update cache as less frequently as
possible. I do think cache greatly helps efficiency because most
of time we only work in several fixed directories, with several
fixed files. We re-list them, re-read the, re-write them, so the
traffic of requesting new data was really low. Mostly everybody
here work in their own directory, it's very rare someone touches
files of other people, so one really doesn't mind if "ls" output
the list of files in the directory 30 minutes ago, as long as his
own changes are updated (e.g. if he created a file himself it
should appear in 'ls').
2. less protocol overhead;
3. maintain a tcp connection. I guess this is good, because then if I
do a 'ls' I don't have to wait for a new connection to be
established. But I am naive here about network knowledge.
4. It is possible to re-establish connection efficiently. this is
because our ISP is not good at maintain a tcp connection longer
than 1 hour, the server/client better has the knowledge how to
re-connect by themselves without forcing user to wait.


Before I try afs, coda, cifs one by one, I'd like to hear opinions from
you especially if you tried other file systems already, your comment is
very appreciated. Thanks in advance!

By the way we have the current setup because we have a powerful
development server runs the system-in-develop in office A, and people in
office B wish to save the trouble and human hour cost of also
maintaining their own development server, by using network file system
to directly work on the other office's development server. We develop
using svn. Any alternative idea other than a network file system is also
very welcome here. Other idea I haven't tried is ftpfs and sshfs, but
don't know if they perform better.
 
Old 09-17-2008, 09:51 PM
Aaron Clark
 
Default an efficient network file system on slow connection, which one to choose?

zhangweiwu@realss.com wrote:

Hello. I am trying to find out what's the best network file system (in
general, like afs, coda, nfs, cifs) fits. We have our two offices
connected to each other through a connection average at 15 to 20 KB/s
with ping-delay less than 100ms and sharing files on the server in one
of the office.


[SNIP]


Before I try afs, coda, cifs one by one, I'd like to hear opinions from
you especially if you tried other file systems already, your comment is
very appreciated. Thanks in advance!


For your purposes, I believe CIFS/Samba will behave pretty much the same
as NFS so probably not what you want. My guess is you will want to try
Coda out based on its wikipedia entry.


Aaron
--
"The goblins are in charge of maintenance? Why not just set it on fire
now and call it a day?"

--Whip Tongue, Viashino Technician
 
Old 09-18-2008, 05:51 AM
Dirk Heinrichs
 
Default an efficient network file system on slow connection, which one to choose?

Am Mittwoch 17 September 2008 23:51:57 schrieb ext Aaron Clark:

> My guess is you will want to try
> Coda out based on its wikipedia entry.

Coda is AFAIK still not production ready, so better check if OpenAFS is for
you. It's also well supported on Gentoo.

HTH...

Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: wwwkeys.pgp.net
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org