Well..back in the bad old days (1998ish) when I was running God's own public Usenet service with cyclone/typhoon products, I learned that parellelizing NFS mounts was a -huge- performance benefit in the Solaris of the day until you reached the limits of the machine itself.

The filer didnt care, the client OS sure did.

I can only assume it's the same today.

-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com]On Behalf Of Steve Losen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 3:18 PM To: George Kahler Cc: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: single vs. multiple nfs mounts

...

I'm a bit worried over the resultant nfs performance all going though this single mount point. Can someone comment on the issues of

multiple

...

nfs mounts vs. a single mount ? What about locking ?

I don't think that single vs. multiple mount points per se makes a performance difference. However, if it makes sense to use different NFS options for different applications, then I believe you can still do it. Just mount the same netapp volume on different mount points with different sets of NFS options, and on the NFS client have each app use the appropriate mount point for the NFS options it needs.

mount -o rw,hard,opt2,opt3 toaster:/vol/big /mnt1

mount -o rw,hard,opt4,opt5 toaster:/vol/big /mnt2

...

Steve Losen scl@virginia.edu phone: 434-924-0640

University of Virginia ITC Unix Support