Verified Answers


If an answer to your question is correct, click on "Verify Answer" under the "More" button. The answer will now appear with a checkmark. Please be sure to always mark answers that resolve your issue as verified. Your fellow Community members will appreciate it!  Learn more

  • State Not Answered
  • Replies reply
    1
  • Subscribers subscribers
    3
  • Views views
    596
  • Users 0 members are here
  • Locked Locked
Related
Options
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Fileserver on NFS

pedro_martin

HI

We have currently a Fileserver install where we have two servers RHEL 5.11 that share a local volume where our PVCS projects are stored.

This way we have 2 fileserver working in active/passive mode to achieve high availability of our PVCS projects.

Due to a need to move from current servers to new ones  we need to get rid of the shared volume and move to a solution where we will have PVCS projects stored on a NFS path that will get mounted in two servers.

However I'm not sure if we will find any problem by running Fileserver on NFS projects is acceptable in terms of  performance (or even product support itself) . Does anyone have a similar situation where NFS is used to store PVCS projects?

One more question regarding this: from my understanding Fileserver is not prepared to work in high availability (both servers active at the same time), is it?

Thanks

  • 0  

    Hello,

    Using an NFS share to store the repository is fine, but it will affect performance compared to local storage as you turn the VM File Server into a proxy: you had client -> network -> FS -> disk, but this becomes client -> network -> FS -> network -> NFS server -> disk. Try to use NFS storage that is physically close to the server, to avoid latency delays, and make sure there is sufficient network capacity.

    The VM File Server process expects to be the owner of the repository, so running two instances simultaneously may lead to problems. The biggest issue I can think of is the the daily maintenance task performed by the Background Processor. You may be able to avoid this by changing the schedule for each, running them 12 hours apart (VM File Server Admin: Options | Background Processor schedule).

    If you have the option to not run pvcsstart.sh until the server becomes active, that would be preferable. If you cannot, avoid actually using both at the same time. (You don't want two VM File Server processes to simultaneously update the revision library for the same archive.)

    You'll still need to solve the problem of accessing the VM File Server, as a single VM client cannot handle communicating with two servers that are publishing identical contents, and will drop one after throwing an error. You may already have a solution for this in place, though, if you currently have a working setup.

    With kind regards,

    - Richard.

Resources

Support
Documentation
Learning Services
Partner Programs
Privacy
Compliance
Help
Company
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Cookies Preferences
Accessibility
Anti-Slavery Statement
Support
Contact Us
Careers
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of OpenText. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.), Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, or Micro Focus. As of January 31, 2023, the Material is now offered by OpenText, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP, Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE, and Micro Focus marks is historical in nature and the HP, Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE, and Micro Focus marks are the property of their respective owners.