From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 11 19:02:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA12146 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:02:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net (porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net [206.64.4.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA12141 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:02:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@hotjobs.com) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA03672; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:04:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bright@hotjobs.com) X-Authentication-Warning: porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net: bright owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:04:43 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein X-Sender: bright@porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net To: Brian Feldman cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is it soup yet? FreeBSD NFS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Brian Feldman wrote: > > > When we "catch up" to Linux, for every advance, we always have a > > > better-implemented version of whatever new has been gotten on Linux. Maybe > > > except for NFS.... but that's being working on, eh? > > > > I hope you are refering to Linux NFS being far inferior to FreeBSD's > > impelementation. If you are not then where do we fall behind? I haven't > > seen Linux outperform FreeBSD in any NFS work i've done. > > Last I had heard, NFS was still too unstable to be used heavily in > FreeBSD, but "worked" in Linux. But, who knows for sure? I don't run any > Linux systems, and I don't really use NFS in FreeBSD. Then perhaps you should stay quiet on the issue. FreeBSD has outperformed linux by several orders of magnitude in client side NFS for a long time. The newer linux development kernels come close, but when concurrent NFS requests are made Linux chokes while FreeBSD maintains a broadband'ish state. I know i posted several times about problems with NFS (about a month ago) but since McKusik's fixes I've yet to have a problem. In so far as serving NFS... the Linux userland NFS server is hardly a match to the FreeBSD kernel impelementation. Stability is another matter and I haven't seen enough to say anything conclusive for either side. Both implementations suffer from lack of support for files > 2gb in client side requests which should be addressed, somehow/somewhen. A recent Linux article suggests that Linux NFS will bipass the "mbuf" layer, ie. the NFS code will directly reassemble packets into RPC requests thereby saving _one_ copy of memory. This is really neat, but then makes NFS dependant on the protocols which it is supposed to be independant of. Btw, Mike Smith's new ACCESS caching seems quite stable and i was wondering if it had been commited. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message