From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 25 00:21:44 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41598A40 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:21:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0607115BF for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:21:43 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAHl1eFGDaFvO/2dsb2JhbABRgzyDMrp6gRh0gh8BAQEDAQEBASArIAsFFg4KAgINGQIpAQkmBggHBAEYBASHbQYMrQ6RKIEjjFt+ATMHgjiBEwOUWoJCgSWPe4MqIDKBBTU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,546,1363147200"; d="scan'208";a="27171134" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2013 20:20:34 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A7CB4047; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 20:20:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Jeremy Chadwick Message-ID: <1999055521.1124890.1366849234763.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20130425000253.GA21621@icarus.home.lan> Subject: Re: nfsv3 vs nfsv4 ? advantages of moving to v4? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.203] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:21:44 -0000 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:55:20PM -0700, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > I found this from '11 on Linux: > > http://archive09.linux.com/feature/138453 > > > > their summary is that there isn't any major advantage in moving to > > v4, but that was 2 years ago =EF=BF=BD thoughts / opinions ? >=20 > Start by reading nfsv4(4). >=20 > There are also threads about people seeing immensely decreased > performance with NFSv4. Not sure if Rick has had the time to fully > rectify this (don't let the Subject line fool you): >=20 > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-September/012381.html >=20 At this point, you can generally assume switching to NFSv4 will be a perfor= mance hit (or performance neutral at best). If you happen to have a high end serv= er (such as a Netapp one that is a cluster that knows how to do pNFS), the NFSv4.1 client in head *might* improve performance beyond what NFSv3 gets from the same server, but as Jeremy noted, ymmv. Delegations (and the experimental work in projects/nfsv4-packrats) may even= tually change that for some environments, as well. (I haven't yet fixed the "more = Lookups than NFSv3" problem recently identified.) The main new features that *might* be a reason for you to adopt NFSv4 at th= is time are (imho): - better support for byte range locking - NFSv4 ACLs A couple of others, like referrals and security labels are still some ways (maybe a long ways) down the road. > You can also Google for "nfsv4 freebsd performance" and take in what > you > can, but remember, YMMV. You should always test in your own > environments, as pretty much everyone's equipment and setups are > different. >=20 > -- > | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@koitsu.org | > | UNIX Systems Administrator http://jdc.koitsu.org/ | > | Mountain View, CA, US | > | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB | >=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"