Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:25:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Phillip Salzman <psalzman@gamefish.pcola.gulf.net> To: "Jason J. Horton" <jason@intercom.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is it soup yet? FreeBSD NFS Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811121622550.4025-100000@gamefish.pcola.gulf.net> In-Reply-To: <364B08C3.27FE59A4@intercom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Check out: http://www.spatula.net/proc/linux|142401dc8b9c927d821519d547d9a0fa8200/linux.lame.nfs.src which was written by Alfred Perlstein -- Phillip Salzman On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Jason J. Horton wrote: > 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 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9811121622550.4025-100000>