NFS or rsync for sharing files between FreeBSD servers?

[Mehmet Erol Sanliturk]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Amitabh Kant <amitabhkant at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Solène Rapenne <solene at perso.pw> wrote:
>
> > Le 2016-09-07 18:09, Amitabh Kant a écrit :
> >
> >> We need to share a number of directories between 3 servers running 9.3 .
> >> Most of these directories contain php/html/js/images files which do not
> >> change frequently.
> >>
> >> We need to keep the directories in sync on all three servers. Currently,
> >> we
> >> run a rsync command every time there is a change in one of the
> >> files/directories. Sometimes it does happen that we forget to run the
> >> rsync
> >> script making one of the servers return old versions.
> >>
> >> That is where we are planning to introduce a nfs_server on one of the
> >> servers, while the other two will be nfs_clients accessing the files
> >> through a shared directory. I understand that it would present a single
> >> point of failure, but in terms of disk access speed, will it make a huge
> >> difference further impacting the web servers running on the nfs_client
> >> servers ? The servers are connected to each other over gigabit lines,
> and
> >> the files are themselves not greater than 20-30 kb on an average, with
> >> some
> >> of  the larger image files somewhere around 4-5 MB.
> >>
> >>
> >> Amitabh
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe
> >> @freebsd.org"
> >>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > When does the files changes ? Is it the server changing the files or is
> it
> > when your team push changes ? If the changes come from your team, just
> > change your deployment script to push it to the 3 servers. I would
> > recommend rsync because if it doesn't change a lot with a NFS you will
> add
> > a SPOF (single point of failure) and overhead for no benefit.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
>
> As of now, files are only changed when the team pushes the change. But
> going ahead, we are looking at a scenario where the files auto-generated
> through script on one server would be required on other servers too. Using
> rsync while running a web server process doesn't seem ok to me. The other
> idea is to use the DB server to store the auto-generated files, and fetch
> on any of the servers are required. While this is a feasible idea
> technically, this might also bloat the DB.
>
> So if NFS overhead is not too huge, I can take a look at it as an option.
>
> Amitabh
> _______________________________________________
>
>


Auto generation script may also update the other servers ,  therefore , it
is not necessary to use NFS .


Mehmet Erol Sanliturk