* Joachim Schipper <j.schipper@math.uu.nl> [2007-04-20 14:49]:
quoted text
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:36:29PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Joachim Schipper <j.schipper@math.uu.nl> [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.

no. cache works. reads are no problem whatsoever in this kind of setup
(well. I am sure you can make that a problem with many frontend servers 
and lots to read. obviously. but for any sane number of frontends, 
should not)

-- 
Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam