 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
25 messages in ru.sysoev.nginxRe: A hardware question| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| mike | Apr 27, 2008 12:36 am | |
| Dave Cheney | Apr 27, 2008 1:21 am | |
| mike | Apr 27, 2008 1:58 am | |
| Dave Cheney | Apr 27, 2008 2:11 am | |
| mike | Apr 27, 2008 1:34 pm | |
| Janko Hauser | Apr 27, 2008 1:44 pm | |
| Igor Sysoev | Apr 27, 2008 9:34 pm | |
| mike | Apr 27, 2008 10:52 pm | |
| Igor Sysoev | Apr 27, 2008 11:05 pm | |
| Chavelle Vincent | Apr 28, 2008 3:16 am | |
| Igor Sysoev | Apr 28, 2008 7:10 am | |
| mike | Apr 28, 2008 11:45 am | |
| kingler | Apr 28, 2008 12:03 pm | |
| mike | Apr 28, 2008 12:26 pm | |
| Ezra Zygmuntowicz | Apr 29, 2008 3:11 pm | |
| mike | Apr 29, 2008 4:55 pm | |
| mike | Apr 29, 2008 7:25 pm | |
| mike | Apr 29, 2008 9:11 pm | |
| Manlio Perillo | Apr 30, 2008 1:11 am | |
| mike | Apr 30, 2008 2:09 am | |
| Manlio Perillo | May 1, 2008 2:47 am | |
| mike | May 1, 2008 8:17 am | |
| mike | May 1, 2008 3:11 pm | |
| Eden Li | May 1, 2008 6:31 pm | |
| mike | May 1, 2008 7:03 pm |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | Re: A hardware question | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | mike (mike...@public.gmane.org) | |
| Date: | Apr 27, 2008 10:52:36 pm | |
| List: | ru.sysoev.nginx | |
Okay.
In your opinion, would you go with lower clock speed quad cores, or higher clock speed dual cores?
Right now I'm doing the same thing with nginx (1) -> nginx myself. I might switch back to something else so I can do healthchecks and remove servers from the pool.
I'll probably stick with Linux for the clients as I am more comfortable with those. I won't need to do much work on the NFS server so that's fine keeping it FBSD...
I'd really appreciate your opinion though on the hardware.
On 4/27/08, Igor Sysoev <is-G...@public.gmane.org> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 01:35:06PM -0700, mike wrote:
Understood. I don't -want- to use NFS, but nobody else has given me any other options. I tried iSCSI+OCFS2, and that had some odd issues and I am not sure it was reliable enough for a low-latency web environment with millions of files.
We use the proxying in this case instead of NFS:
client > nginx (1) > nginx
On nginx (1) it's better to set "proxy_max_temp_file_size 0" for the proxied location.
I'm pretty OCD, I'd like all my machines to match, and I have the ability right now to get them synced up before I start using them.
Also, would FreeBSD or Linux be better for the dual or quad core? Last answer I got was nginx probably works better under FBSD. NFS works better under FBSD too. My NFS server is already FBSD...
Use OS that you know better. I think FreeBSD and Linux are both good for nginx.
On 4/27/08, Dave Cheney <dave-7L4Cwp9BzA+sTnJN9+BG...@public.gmane.org> wrote:
As Igor suggested serving files directly from NFS will cause the workers to stall. You should be able to compensate by using more workers, perhaps 2 or 3 per physical CPU but it depends heavily on the setup of your NFS server, the network in between, etc.
On 27/04/2008, at 6:58 PM, mike wrote:
yeah i shouldn't be hitting the SATA bottleneck. right now most is served via NFS,
-- Igor Sysoev http://sysoev.ru/en/