Weird timeouts, not sure if I've set the right threshholds

[Denis S. Filimonov]

Hi guys,

Can anyone explain the prejudice against NFS?

Specifically, why would additional proxy hop be faster than serving files from 
NFS? 
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

--  
Denis.