Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:12:18 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: rmacklem@uoguelph.ca Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: nfsv3 vs nfsv4 ? advantages of moving to v4? Message-ID: <20130429.001218.331360293034031466.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <1999055521.1124890.1366849234763.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> References: <20130425000253.GA21621@icarus.home.lan> <1999055521.1124890.1366849234763.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote in <1999055521.1124890.1366849234763.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>: rm> Jeremy Chadwick wrote: rm> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:55:20PM -0700, Marc G. Fournier wrote: rm> > > rm> > > I found this from '11 on Linux: rm> > > http://archive09.linux.com/feature/138453 rm> > > rm> > > their summary is that there isn't any major advantage in moving to rm> > > v4, but that was 2 years ago � thoughts / opinions ? rm> > rm> > Start by reading nfsv4(4). rm> > rm> > There are also threads about people seeing immensely decreased rm> > performance with NFSv4. Not sure if Rick has had the time to fully rm> > rectify this (don't let the Subject line fool you): rm> > rm> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-September/012381.html rm> > rm> At this point, you can generally assume switching to NFSv4 will be a performance rm> hit (or performance neutral at best). If you happen to have a high end server rm> (such as a Netapp one that is a cluster that knows how to do pNFS), rm> the NFSv4.1 client in head *might* improve performance rm> beyond what NFSv3 gets from the same server, but as Jeremy noted, ymmv. rm> Delegations (and the experimental work in projects/nfsv4-packrats) may eventually rm> change that for some environments, as well. (I haven't yet fixed the "more Lookups rm> than NFSv3" problem recently identified.) rm> rm> The main new features that *might* be a reason for you to adopt NFSv4 at this time are (imho): rm> - better support for byte range locking rm> - NFSv4 ACLs rm> A couple of others, like referrals and security labels are still some ways rm> (maybe a long ways) down the road. I need more investigation, but I was trying to use NFSv4 for a while and noticed that my NFS server's CPU load became much higher and the performance was worse than NFSv3 though simple microbenchmark showed no much difference in performance. The degradation seems to depend on the workload. -- Hiroki [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAlF9PFIACgkQTyzT2CeTzy1C5wCgsJuCnp+ubDEorVOmZZqJX4wK EJ4AmgLdFAD62OAwA1FzydtBv0L6nGCC =DCj9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130429.001218.331360293034031466.hrs>