if the link is stable, cfs(4) might be useful. -Skip
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bakul Shah <ba...@bitblocks.com> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?= > <ara...@mgk.ro> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file >> servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and >> Mac OS X. >> >> I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms of network latency. I want to >> set some servers in each location and have all data accessible from >> anywhere. I'll have about 2TB of data at each location, one location >> will probably scale up. > ... >> Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p >> operation? (I have 100Mbit). > > With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more > than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be > 6.55Mbps or about 15 times slower than using HTTP/FTP on > 100Mbps link for large files. [John, what was the link speed > for the tests in your thesis?] > >> Right now (only one location) I am using a Solaris server with ZFS >> that serves SMB and iSCSI. > > Using venti in place of (or over) ZFS on spinning disks would > incur further performance degradation. > >> Any tips are welcomed :-), > > Since you want everything accessble from both sites, how about > temporarily caching remote files locally? There was a usenix > paper about `nache', a caching proxy for nfs4 that may be of > interest. Or may be ftpfs with a local cache if remote access > is readonly? > >
