Re: [MooseFS-Users] Two mounts or one? what has better performance

[WK <wk...@bn...>]

On 2/6/2017 10:52 AM, Wilson, Steven M wrote:
>
>> Also, copying/moving files between mountpoints is going to be slower than if
>> you have files and backup on the same mountpoint.
> The difference is quite substantial when moving files since it only takes a few seconds to make the necessary metadata updates when moving files under the same mount point.  I usually have two mount points for each of my MooseFS file systems, a home/data mount point ("/home" inside MooseFS) and a scratch mount point ("/scratch" inside MooseFS).  But if I ever need to move a large amount of data from one to the other, I'll temporarily create a mount point that is at the root of the of the MooseFS file system ("/") just to execute the move.

So assuming there normal is little interaction between two file systems, 
(i.e. where the cache would help or things are moved back and forth).  I 
like the temp mount idea and will keep that in mind.

I take it two seperate mounts is a better strategy?

Im worried about resources limits per mount etc. (though the defaults 
look pretty generous). CPU consumption (i.e. two fuse mounts more work 
than one?) etc.

-wk