Re: [9fans] file server?

[blstuart@bellsouth.net]

> Once, it used to be the "standard" configuration to have one machine as a CPU/auth server, one machine as a file server, and one machine as a "terminal", for a total of three systems, if one had the available hardware.

The power in that model comes primarily when you have
a number of terminals being supported by the file and cpu/auth
servers.  Throwing bigger disks on the file server gives everyone
more space.  Upgrading the big honkin' cpu server gives everyone
a speed boost.  Of course, these days, a $400 laptop is more
honkin' (in many ways) than big systems of just a few years
ago.  Still the separation of functionality does have advantages.
But I digress...

> What's the "recommended" setup now?  Are most people using a combined cpu/auth/file server running Fossil+Venti, or is the recommendation to use a seperate fossil+venti server dedicated to file serving, and another to serve as CPU/auth?

Currently, I'm running a combined file/cpu/auth server, and
I run 9vx in FreeBSD as a terminal connecting to my server.
While not mentioned often, 9vx has a -b option that allows
you to point it to a file server the same way a terminal does.
I can also cpu into the cpu server just like with a real terminal.
And when I'm away from home with my laptop, I can still
run 9vx with a local file system.

As soon as my supply of round tuits is replinished, I intend
to put a CPU server in place.

BLS