Hi all, i have a new setup where the htdocs directory for the webserver is located on a nfs share. Client has cachefilesd configured. Compared to the old setup (htdocs directory is on the local disk) the performance is not so gratifying. The disk is "faster" compared to the ethernet link but the cache should at least compensate this a bit. Do they exist more pitfalls for such configurations? Thanks LF PS: checking httpd's caching system now ...
Leon Fauster wrote:> i have a new setup where the htdocs directory for the webserver > is located on a nfs share. Client has cachefilesd configured. > Compared to the old setup (htdocs directory is on the local disk) > the performance is not so gratifying. The disk is "faster" compared > to the ethernet link but the cache should at least compensate this > a bit. Do they exist more pitfalls for such configurations?If I needed to serve files from an nfs share, I'd use rsync to pull down a local copy of the files to the webserver. This would give you the benefits of using the nfs location without the network latency. c
remove 2013/10/22 Leon Fauster <leonfauster at googlemail.com>> Hi all, > > i have a new setup where the htdocs directory for the webserver > is located on a nfs share. Client has cachefilesd configured. > Compared to the old setup (htdocs directory is on the local disk) > the performance is not so gratifying. The disk is "faster" compared > to the ethernet link but the cache should at least compensate this > a bit. Do they exist more pitfalls for such configurations? > > Thanks > > LF > > PS: checking httpd's caching system now ... > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >?remove? --
----- Original Message ----- | Hi all, | | i have a new setup where the htdocs directory for the webserver | is located on a nfs share. Client has cachefilesd configured. | Compared to the old setup (htdocs directory is on the local disk) | the performance is not so gratifying. The disk is "faster" compared | to the ethernet link but the cache should at least compensate this | a bit. Do they exist more pitfalls for such configurations? | | Thanks | | LF | | PS: checking httpd's caching system now ... The best thing to do with respect to NFS shares is to make extensive use of caching in front of the web servers. This will hide the latencies that the NFS protocol will bring. You can try to scale NFS through use of channel bonding or pNFS/Gluster but setting up a reverse proxy or memcached instance is going to be your best bet to making the system perform well. -- James A. Peltier Manager, IT Services - Research Computing Group Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus Phone : 778-782-6573 Fax : 778-782-3045 E-Mail : jpeltier at sfu.ca Website : http://www.sfu.ca/itservices ?A successful person is one who can lay a solid foundation from the bricks others have thrown at them.? -David Brinkley via Luke Shaw