Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

For example, we have:

  • Server A with 30 Gb disk space
  • Server B with 500 Gb disk space. It has /media folder (100 Gb - it's more, than whole A server disk space)

I want to mount /media on server A. Will it be ok? If I want to mount 100 Gb folder via NFS, should I have 100 Gb free space on my server?

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

One has nothing to do with the other. There's no particular reason a server should have local free space to mount NFS volumes.

share|improve this answer
    
So, it will work fine? – Antonio Nov 4 '13 at 6:45
    
Yes, it will. Why wouldn't it? – David Schwartz Nov 4 '13 at 8:08

NFS stands for Network File System. It allows you to connect on your server A (to mount) a remote folder /media of server B. You don't copy any file from that remote location to your local storage, you just establish a network link to access this storage.

If your server A is formated, the data in /media can still be accessed on server B in /media.

If your server B is formated, the data in /media will not be accessible anymore from your server A.

The equivalent of NFS on windows is network drives.

share|improve this answer

Definitely no issue there. You can mount B:/media at A:/somepath using NFS and there will be no issue. I have seen many terabytes mounted in a humble SunOS Sparc server.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.