[mythtv-users] NFS suggestions under heavy load?

shadestalker at gmail.com shadestalker at gmail.com
Mon Jan 9 14:21:14 UTC 2006


On 1/9/06, f-myth-users at media.mit.edu <f-myth-users at media.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> I suspect that the answer to this question is, "Don't do that, then,"
> but in case anyone has any suggestions:




The question is, can I do better?  I don't imagine I'll often be
> rsyncing the entire disk, but I will certainly be rsyncing the delta
> since the last rsync, and I'd rather not have to worry about that
> disrupting recordings.  (That's a bit harder to test under load, since
> the deltas will vary, but I'll attempt it to ensure that rsync's
> scanning phase isn't enough to cause disruption.)  Current NFS mount
> options are rsize and wsize of 8192; would increasing these help on a
> 100baseT hub, or just lead to more fragment reassembly?  (Actually,
> the hub itself is an SMC 8508T gigabit hub with jumbo packet support,
> but the NICs on the CPUs are only 100 megabit.)  Other NFS options are
> soft & nfsvers=3, which are pretty standard.
>


Have you tried using NFS over TCP?  It won't help the dirvish I/O on local
disk, but could improve reliability of the NFS mount for your SBE.

A nice addition to your setup would probably be a dedicated NFS server.
This doesn't eliminate dirvish I/O as a problem entirely, but confines it to
the machine running a backup at the time.  Even assuming your backups go to
the NFS server, you'll still be better off this way I think.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20060109/751e427b/attachment.htm


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list