I have a web application that can store lots and lots of files on the server. i.e. users upload data to it. The files are stored below a particular storage path.

The web host will be an IBM xseries 345. However, the disks are really expensive so we would like to put the files onto a less expensive server. Now here is the question. Should I use an NFS mount on the IBM server of a path on the storage server? Or should I write some scripts to upload the files to the storage server instead. Both the storage server and the web host are on the same network. Only the web server is visible to the world.

Is NFS performance suitable for an expected low to moderately loaded server?


You could also use iSCSI. iSCSI Enterprise Target on the storage server, iscsi-initiator-utils (RHEL/CentOS) on the web host.



From your description - a web application which won't be doing anything requiring super lower latency, super high transfer rates or complex file locking - NFS will be just fine.

If configured correctly it will almost certainly be more robust than syncing data around.


NFS performance would be fine, but if the volume of files (and the delta) is that low, then an occasional sync would probably be the best way, particularly if they don't need to be stored on the web server.

I only say that because NFS has issues with hanging due to network problems. You don't want your users to be unable to upload because the network is temporarily unavailable. By syncing, you eliminate that potential service loss.

I've seen many cases where an hourly cronjob will sweep through and transfer everything to another server, and then it deletes anything over a day old.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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