From: Jakub Kruszona-Z. <jak...@ge...> - 2017-02-06 10:36:19
|
On 2 Feb, 2017, at 19:28, WK <wk...@bn...> wrote: > We have a project where we have a machine that is talking to a MFS3 > cluster for two purposes > > The main purpose is a very busy file repo, we are also copying off large > archives in to a backup folder 2-3 times a day. > > We want to reduce latency on the files as the client is somewhat picky > and want to avoid the archive dump slowing things down. > > What is the best way to handle that > > A) one mfsmount to /mfs3mnt > > with subdirectory /mfs3mnt/backup & /mfs3mnt/files > > > b) Two seperate mfsmounts on the client > > /mfs3backup > > and > > /mfs3files > > Security isolation is not a concern. > > So what would provide the best performance? or does it really matter? > > The connection would be 1GB ethernet with jumbo frames. > > > Note we are considering that with two mounts we could use seperate > ethernet cards, however its not an option immediately as the host has > used up all the ports with other needs. > > If you feel strongly that would make a difference then I can push a host > migration on the client. > > And of course 10G is getting reasonable, but still not a default on our > somewhat older kit. > > -wk > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _________________________________________ > moosefs-users mailing list > moo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users The main difference will be cache. In case of one mount you will have one cache shared between users ('files' folder) and your backup ('backup' folder). In case of two mounts you will have two independent caches. I do not expect big difference but still it may improve a little bit. -- Regards, Jakub Kruszona-Zawadzki - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Segmentation fault (core dumped) Phone: +48 602 212 039 |