Everything I've heard about experiences with mysql on NFS has been negative. If you do want to try it, though, keep in mind that 100Mbit/sec ethernet is going to give you 12.5MByte/sec, less actually, of I/O performance. GIGE cards are cheap these days, as are switches with a few GIGE ports. 1000baseT works, take advantage of it.
I hope you'll think about a solution other than mysql for this problem, though. It's not the right tool for session management on such a scale. -- Jeff S Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Development Five Elements, Inc http://www.five-elements.com/~jsw/ On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 07:54, Patrick Hsieh wrote: > Hello Nicolas Bougues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > I'd like to discuss the NFS server in this network scenario. > Say, if I put a linux-based NFS server as the central storage device and > make all web servers as well as the single mysql write server attached > over the 100Base ethernet. When encountering 30,000 concurrent clients, > will the NFS server be the bottleneck? > > I am thinking about to put a NetApp filer as the NFS server or build a > linux-based one myself. Can anyone give me some advice? > > If I put the raw data of MySQL write server in the NetApp filer, if the > database crashes, I can hopefully recover the latest snapshot backup > from the NetApp filer in a very short time. However, if I put on the > local disk array(raid 5) or linux-based NFS server with raid 5 disk > array attached, I wonder whether it will be my bottleneck or not. > > How does mysql support the NFS server? Is it wise to put mysql raw data > in the NFS? > > > -- > Patrick Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > GPG public key http://pahud.net/pubkeys/pahudatpahud.gpg > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
