On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 13:15 -0800, Jon Forrest wrote: > One person whom I respect told me that static mounts > result in more overhead on the server. I didn't > understand this but I don't claim to be > an NFS expert. It depends upon your setup. As Tom said, cluster bootup times can suffer if everybody is pounding the server with static mount requests at the same time. However, once that is done, there is usually very little overhead: if you have no applications actually using the filesystem, then the client will disconnect the TCP connection after ~5 minutes idle time (and on NFSv4, it will stop renewing the NFSv4 leases). Once that is done, there is no overhead whatsoever on the server. However, one way in which static mounts can cause the server load to increase is if you have applications whose behaviour is to follow active mountpoints. For instance, the 'updatedb' daemon usually won't follow an inactive automount point, but once the NFS filesystem is actually mounted, it will traipse through, and index all the files it can find there. Another application that often causes unnecessary traffic in the static mount case is 'df'. So before deciding on automount vs static mount, I'd advise you to do an audit of your cluster nodes to see what applications are going to be running and how their behaviour may cause the load to differ. Cheers Trond -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
