Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:15:36 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com>, Christian Baer <christian.baer@uni-dortmund.de> Subject: Re: The magic of ZFS and NFS (2nd try) Message-ID: <1105076308.8017441.1424564136910.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <C64FC95C-D98B-4EAF-83CC-E443B56B38B2@ultra-secure.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rainer Duffner wrote: >=20 > > Am 21.02.2015 um 19:23 schrieb Jordan Hubbard <jkh@ixsystems.com>: > >=20 > >=20 > >> On Feb 21, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Christian Baer > >> <christian.baer@uni-dortmund.de> wrote: > >>=20 > >> But why shouldn't I use /etc/exports? I have read people writing > >> this (don't > >> use /etc/exports) in forums when searching for answers, however > >> the current > >> manpage for zfs says this: > >=20 > > FreeNAS has more experience with sharing things from ZFS than > > anyone else in the BSD community (that=E2=80=99s not hyperbole, it=E2= =80=99s > > simply fact). We don=E2=80=99t use any of the zfs sharing flags. Thos= e > > were intended more for Solaris (sharesmb, for example - FreeBSD > > lets you do that, but what does it *mean* when you don=E2=80=99t have a > > native CIFS service?). FreeBSD has never integrated ZFS=E2=80=99s not= ion > > of sharing or, for that matter, a number of other things like > > drive hot sparing and automatic replacement, and you=E2=80=99re seeing = the > > results of ZFS=E2=80=99s solaris roots still not lining up 100% with th= eir > > new FreeBSD home. That=E2=80=99s all. > >=20 > > I would simplify things, just as FreeNAS has (for good reasons), > > and simply have ZFS be =E2=80=9Ca filesystem=E2=80=9D from FreeBSD=E2= =80=99s perspective > > and share it just as you would UFS. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Interesting. >=20 > I admit I don=E2=80=99t use NFS v4. > Is it much faster than NFS v3 these days? >=20 Nope. If you are lucky, you'll be about performance neutral when switching from v3 -> v4. If you access lots of files, you probably won't be performance neutral, due to the extra overhead of Opens, etc. NFSv4 isn't really a replacement for NFSv3 imho. It fills a different, although somewhat overlapping solution space. It provides better byte range locking, ACLs and, when pNFS becomes commonly available, better scalability for I/O performance on relatively large servers (especially if the clients are accessing a fairly small number of large files). If you don't need any of the above, you don't need/want NFSv4, again imho. Sorry to wander off topic, but Rainer did ask;-) rick > But I=E2=80=99ve always added the line from exports(5) into the sharenfs > property like >=20 > zfs get sharenfs datapool/nfs/ds3-documents > NAME PROPERTY VALUE > SOURCE > datapool/nfs/ds3-documents sharenfs -maproot=3D1003 -network > 10.10.10.0 -mask 255.255.255.0 inherited from datapool/nfs >=20 > These lines get written into /etc/zfs/exports >=20 > I like it that way because if a filesystem is destroyed, I don=E2=80=99t = have > to remember removing it from /etc/exports. >=20 > I also admit I=E2=80=99m heavily influenced by Solaris on this particular > setting=E2=80=A6 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1105076308.8017441.1424564136910.JavaMail.root>