From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Nov 9 19:27:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9267014BC4 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:27:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca ([204.244.186.218]) by mail2.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #4) id 11lOPw-000Lvd-00 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 09 Nov 1999 19:27:28 -0800 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:27:23 -0800 (PST) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: NFS in -stable Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I've been searching the archives for some definitive statements on what the status of NFS these days, and I have really come with anything. How is the performance, and stability of the NFS client in 3.2-stable today? I understand the server side of NFS locking is finished, but the client isn't? So if processes running on a client lock NFS files, the NFS server won't know, and neither will other NFS clients? However, what about processes running on the same client? Will those locks work? Is NFSv2 or NFSv3 recommended for 3.2-stable? I'm primarily interested in the NFS client, versus a NetApp NFS server. Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message