From owner-freebsd-current Thu Nov 12 08:14:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23604 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:14:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.intercom.com ([207.51.55.117]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23599 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:14:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jason@intercom.com) Received: from intercom.com (shagalicious.com [206.98.165.250]) by mail.intercom.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA10533 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:14:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <364B08C3.27FE59A4@intercom.com> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:11:47 -0500 From: "Jason J. Horton" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is it soup yet? FreeBSD NFS References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Everyone seems to be talking about using FreeBSD as an NFS client, how does FreeBSD do as a NFS server? -J Alfred Perlstein wrote: > 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message