|
|
|
|
|
|
by subway
3020 days ago
|
|
|
None of these statements are inherently true about NFS. They may be applicable to some deployments or applications of NFS, but they don't hold generally speaking. NFS is used heavily throughout HPC for workloads that don't require a parallel filesystem (and even then, pNFS is plugging along, even if it's largely ignored in favor of Lustre et al for accessing parallel filesystems.) |
|
|
But in a general sense, when I've seen suggestions to use NFS, it hasn't been the correct solution. Like a system that is designed to run on a single server, and someone wants to make it active-active HA by pointing two servers at the same data over NFS. No, that won't work. Or the high IOPS system, and someone wants to move it to a throughput optimized NFS service. Or the team the decided it was a good idea to log from multiple servers to a single file over NFS, and then complained that their log messages were not being written in order. Or having multiple web servers (HA!) serve media off a single NFS server.
In this specific case, if someone is maximizing IOPS per server, it probably isn't a good idea to use a single large volume exported via NFS and share it across them. Max IOPS for gp2 volumes is 10,000, for io1 it is 32,000. Sharing a single 10,000 IOPS volume across a bunch of servers isn't going to get you a bunch of 10,000 IOPS volumes.
Based on my experience, I instinctively question the use of NFS, it is so rarely the right solution in a cloud environment. Sometimes it is the right solution, I'm just saying it is pretty rare.