On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:36:29PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-20 00:36]:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > I don't think NFS/AFS is that good an idea; you'll need very beefy
> > > > fileservers and a fast network.
> > >
> > > NFS may actually be useful; if you really need the files in one
> > > directory space for management/updates that's a way to do it (i.e.
> > > mount all the various storage servers by NFS on a management
> > > station/ftp server/whatever).
> >
> > Something like that might be a very good idea, yes. Just don't try to
> > serve everything directly off NFS.
>
> there is nothing wrong with serving directly from NFS.
Really? You have a lot more experience in this area, so I will defer to
you if you are sure, but it seems to me that in the sort of system I
explicitly assumed (something like a web farm), serving everything off
NFS would involve either very expensive hardware or be rather slow.
I see how in your example - a lot of storage, not accessed often - just
serving everything off NFS makes perfect sense. However, that was not
what I was talking about.
Perhaps you could elaborate a little? I'm interested, at least...
Joachim
--
TFMotD: hostapd.conf (5) - configuration file for the Host Access Point
daemon
