From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300." References: Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:00:38 -0700 From: Bakul Shah Message-Id: <20110817210038.66E0CB827@mail.bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Help with two small shared file servers Topicbox-Message-UUID: 13e8fad8-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:09:47 +0300 =?UTF-8?B?QXJhbSBIxIN2xINybmVhbnU=?= wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking for advice on how to build a small network of two file > servers. I'm hoping most servers to be Plan9, clients are Windows and > Mac OS X. > > I have 2 houses separated by about 40ms of network latency. I want to > set some servers in each location and have all data accessible from > anywhere. I'll have about 2TB of data at each location, one location > will probably scale up. ... > Is 9p suitable for this? How will the 40ms latency affect 9p > operation? (I have 100Mbit). With a strict request/response protocol you will get no more than 64KB once every 80ms so your throughput at best will be 6.55Mbps or about 15 times slower than using HTTP/FTP on 100Mbps link for large files. [John, what was the link speed for the tests in your thesis?] > Right now (only one location) I am using a Solaris server with ZFS > that serves SMB and iSCSI. Using venti in place of (or over) ZFS on spinning disks would incur further performance degradation. > Any tips are welcomed :-), Since you want everything accessble from both sites, how about temporarily caching remote files locally? There was a usenix paper about `nache', a caching proxy for nfs4 that may be of interest. Or may be ftpfs with a local cache if remote access is readonly?