Re: nfs mounted web dierstories?

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: nfs mounted web dierstories?
From: "Matthew S. Crocker" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:04:10 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Dana Quinn wrote:

A novel solution is to setup a staging area.

Setup one machine with one web server for the developers to ftp the site
up.  Give them addresses like staging.<domain_name>.  Have a web interface
which rsyncs the files to the 'production' sites when they are happy.
This has many advantages.  You keep developrs off the production servers,
you make your life easier with the data management and your developers are
happy because they can test a new site before they show it to the world.


> On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 08:08:29AM -0400, Matthew S. Crocker wrote:
> > On 27 Apr 2001, Doug Elznic wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello,
> > > I am having some trouble getting my developers to get used to ftping
> > > their files twice to get the two real servers in sync. How are other
> > > people keeping their server in sync. And what are the performance
> > > implications for doing it your way? I have thought more about nfs lately
> > > but I am afraid that the nfs server will create a  bottlneck. And I know
> > > very little about coda's stability/performance. I saw the old survey but
> > > it was not very indepth about this.
> > 
> > We have a 5 real-server cluster, each has dual ethernet, one to the
> > Internet and one to a private LAN switch (cisco 3548XL).  The switch is
> > connect via gigabit to a Network Appliance NetFiler F720 (
> > (/home, /usr, /opt, /webspace) is mounted from the netfiler
> > 
> > You can also automate with rsync if you want to keep two seperate copies.
> > 
> <Nod>  We have a similar setup, using a Netapp.  We're serving 8-10
> million pageviews/day with this setup, and iostat times for file
> access on the realservers is lower with the Netapp than it was
> with local disk.  Of course you have a nasty single point of
> failure there...  so we use rdist or rsync to make local disk
> backup copies.
> Netapp claims that their NFS implementation is faster than most,
> so using some out of the box OS vendor's NFS implementation might
> not perform as well.  Of course, that could be marketing drivel
> from Netapp.
> Overall, to address the original question - rather than complicating
> your setup, you might benefit from formalizing your
> developer's process of making content go live - provide them a
> push tool that wraps around rsync or rdist.  Of course developers
> usually hate losing access to ftping content right to the
> servers...  so have fun with that!  :)
> dana

Matthew S. Crocker 
Vice President / Internet Division         Email: matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx
Crocker Communications                     Phone: (413) 587-3350
PO BOX 710                                 Fax:   (413) 587-3352
Greenfield, MA 01302-0710        

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>