A hardware question
is at rambler-co.ru
Mon Apr 28 08:35:09 MSD 2008
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 01:35:06PM -0700, mike wrote:
> Understood. I don't -want- to use NFS, but nobody else has given me
> any other options. I tried iSCSI+OCFS2, and that had some odd issues
> and I am not sure it was reliable enough for a low-latency web
> environment with millions of files.
We use the proxying in this case instead of NFS:
client > nginx (1) > nginx
On nginx (1) it's better to set "proxy_max_temp_file_size 0" for
the proxied location.
> I'm pretty OCD, I'd like all my machines to match, and I have the
> ability right now to get them synced up before I start using them.
> Also, would FreeBSD or Linux be better for the dual or quad core? Last
> answer I got was nginx probably works better under FBSD. NFS works
> better under FBSD too. My NFS server is already FBSD...
Use OS that you know better. I think FreeBSD and Linux are both good for nginx.
> On 4/27/08, Dave Cheney <dave at cheney.net> wrote:
> > As Igor suggested serving files directly from NFS will cause the workers to
> > stall. You should be able to compensate by using more workers, perhaps 2 or
> > 3 per physical CPU but it depends heavily on the setup of your NFS server,
> > the network in between, etc.
> > On 27/04/2008, at 6:58 PM, mike wrote:
> > > yeah i shouldn't be hitting the SATA bottleneck. right now most is
> > > served via NFS,
> > >
More information about the nginx