Weird timeouts, not sure if I've set the right threshholds
mike503 at gmail.com
Sat May 3 00:52:40 MSD 2008
Would you mind sharing your tuning?
and what OS/specs the clients and server have?
you can reply off list if you want.
On 5/2/08, Denis S. Filimonov <den.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Can anyone explain the prejudice against NFS?
> Specifically, why would additional proxy hop be faster than serving files from
> I can see two points in favor of NFS:
> - NFS client caches files while Nginx doesn't (yet)
> - Nginx doesn't support keepalive connections to upstream, hence additional
> latencies and traffic for TCP handshake/finalization. NFS doesn't have this
> issue since it typically works over UDP.
> I do have a couple boxes serving a lot of traffic (mostly PHP) from NFS. It
> works just fine, though it did take some NFS tuning.
> On Friday 02 May 2008 16:05:21 Cliff Wells wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 12:46 -0700, mike wrote:
> > > ohh.
> > >
> > > well, i am not sure the NFS server is up to that much load... i've
> > > never really looked at doing something like that.
> > Using Nginx will probably reduce the load. I haven't used NFS in a long
> > while but I don't recall it being all that lightweight.
> > I suspect that if your NFS server seems heavily loaded it's exactly
> > because you are using NFS to serve public files.
> > > besides, i still need NFS there for all writes and normal filesystem
> > > access. it's not just an HTTP GET environment..
> > You can run both. The main point is to only serve files to the public
> > using Nginx and reduce NFS access to only internal use.
> > Regards,
> > Cliff
More information about the nginx