Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: zhangweiwu@××××××.com
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] an efficient network file system on slow connection, which one to choose?
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:07:42
1 Hello. I am trying to find out what's the best network file system (in
2 general, like afs, coda, nfs, cifs) fits. We have our two offices
3 connected to each other through a connection average at 15 to 20 KB/s
4 with ping-delay less than 100ms and sharing files on the server in one
5 of the office.
7 Currently we use NFS, but it's unacceptably latent ("ls" takes 6
8 seconds, so does opening and saving a file). It seems to be protocol
9 overhead because even small directories and small files take 6 seconds
10 to open. By "latent", I don't know how to describe this better, I mean,
11 for example, if we do a cp, we are satisfied at how long time it takes
12 to transfer the file, but not satisfied with the time it awaits before
13 the transfer starts.
15 I guess what we need is a network FS that:
17 1. cache as much as possible and update cache as less frequently as
18 possible. I do think cache greatly helps efficiency because most
19 of time we only work in several fixed directories, with several
20 fixed files. We re-list them, re-read the, re-write them, so the
21 traffic of requesting new data was really low. Mostly everybody
22 here work in their own directory, it's very rare someone touches
23 files of other people, so one really doesn't mind if "ls" output
24 the list of files in the directory 30 minutes ago, as long as his
25 own changes are updated (e.g. if he created a file himself it
26 should appear in 'ls').
27 2. less protocol overhead;
28 3. maintain a tcp connection. I guess this is good, because then if I
29 do a 'ls' I don't have to wait for a new connection to be
30 established. But I am naive here about network knowledge.
31 4. It is possible to re-establish connection efficiently. this is
32 because our ISP is not good at maintain a tcp connection longer
33 than 1 hour, the server/client better has the knowledge how to
34 re-connect by themselves without forcing user to wait.
37 Before I try afs, coda, cifs one by one, I'd like to hear opinions from
38 you especially if you tried other file systems already, your comment is
39 very appreciated. Thanks in advance!
41 By the way we have the current setup because we have a powerful
42 development server runs the system-in-develop in office A, and people in
43 office B wish to save the trouble and human hour cost of also
44 maintaining their own development server, by using network file system
45 to directly work on the other office's development server. We develop
46 using svn. Any alternative idea other than a network file system is also
47 very welcome here. Other idea I haven't tried is ftpfs and sshfs, but
48 don't know if they perform better.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] an efficient network file system on slow connection, which one to choose? Aaron Clark <ophidian@×××××××××××××××.net>