5 ms·

I'm curious what your domain is and what tech you've been using? Every Linux shop I've worked in 10+ years has used NFS without any word of an alternative. Th

by pfranz 7y ago

I'm curious what your domain is and what tech you've been using? Every Linux shop I've worked in 10+ years has used NFS without any word of an alternative. The few places I've worked that mixed NFS with SMB or exclusively used SMB I've had performance issues when jumping between the two (perhaps due to experience and configuration). My work has mostly been in Linux shops with 10s-100s of workstations+servers. NFS was used for homedirs and shared data. Sometimes servers were hundreds of miles away.

gumby 7y ago
> I'm curious what your domain is and what tech you've been using? It’s good to see these replies as everybody’s experience is different and I learn by asking. Perhaps NFS has improved a lot; I started using it in the 1980s after using client/server filesystems like IFS and Alpine at parc and the per-file protocols we had at mit for the pod-10s and Lispms. With NFS locking and such were painful because it tried hard to look no different from a local filesystem, but couldn’t be. Network mounted homedirs were common to me from the early 80s but under NFS were too painful. I imagine things have improved over the last couple of decades! The environments I’ve used more recently have used a combination of replication (e.g. Dropbox), moved the computation to the data (“cloud” though for me typically this has meant in-house someplace rather than a third party or shared machine) or hybrid (e.g. IMAP). Datasets tend not to be super huge — < 50 TB — so other approaches are used at the back end.