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

[Denis S. Filimonov]

Clients and the server are RHEL4.
The mount options are as follows:
nolock,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,nocto,nfsvers=2

On Friday 02 May 2008 16:52:40 mike wrote:
> 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 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.



-- 
Denis.