From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 7 23:35:15 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E206106564A for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:35:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brodbd@uw.edu) Received: from mail-ew0-f54.google.com (mail-ew0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AC78FC16 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:35:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy1 with SMTP id 1so88954ewy.13 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:35:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.14.18 with SMTP id e18mr5488eba.47.1315438513775; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 16:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.26.75 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:35:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1890483230.950189.1315438082185.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> References: <1890483230.950189.1315438082185.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:35:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Brodbeck To: Rick Macklem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Slow NFSv4 performance, was: Re: ZFSv28+NFSv4 poor file creation performance, "sync=disabled" has no effect X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:35:15 -0000 On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > Basically, unless you need the better byte range locking or ACLs, you can > just > use NFSv3. I don't think NFSv4 will ever replace NFSv3. It was designed > for a somewhat different problem space. > Unfortunately I do need the ACLs. We have a lot of shared projects and the group membership limit in NFS bites us pretty badly, so we use ACLs to work around it. There are other things in NFSv4 we need too, but ACLs are a biggie. I think I'm going to look at OpenIndiana next. It should give similar performance to what we're seeing with OpenSolaris, but unlike OpenSolaris it's still maintained. A major reason I was hoping to go with FreeBSD instead (other than familiarity) is better hardware support, though. Finding disk controllers that work with Solaris is a real headache. -- David Brodbeck System Administrator, Linguistics University of Washington