From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 7 15:02:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF4A16A4FC; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 15:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BFE43E73; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:59:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kB7ExC5A066859; Thu, 7 Dec 2006 07:59:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:00:07 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20061207.080007.1720215207.imp@bsdimp.com> To: harti@freebsd.org, hartmut.brandt@dlr.de From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20061207090026.I17220@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <20061206.143808.-1350498609.imp@bsdimp.com> <20061207090026.I17220@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:59:12 -0700 (MST) Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:02:04 -0000 In message: <20061207090026.I17220@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> Harti Brandt writes: : MWL>Does anybody have experience with using FreeBSD 4.x or 6.x NFS clients : MWL>against a Windows 2003 NFS server? What is the performance relative : MWL>to using a FreeBSD NFS server? What is the stability? Does locking : MWL>work? Does the Windows 2003 server have extensions that grok file : MWL>system flags? : : I use this regularily (well, -CURRENT). I have no numbers, but performance : is ok. I have the home directories on a W2003k server and it 'feels' fast : enough. We see FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS feeling fast enough for most things, but when we do a full build of our system from scratch it takes 10 hours over NFS vs 1 hour on a local disk. We're worried that if we were to try to do heavy NFS traffic to a Win2003 server with SFU this would be even slower. : The only problem I see is a lot of 'file server not reponding' and 'file : server up again' (with 2-3 seconds in between). This is usually when : saving a large mail from pine. Linux clients see the same problem, so I : suppose it is a problem on the SFU side. So building large binaries might be a problem? : Locking seems to work. Does "seems to work" mean it really does work, or does SFU just do the old trick of saying 'ok, your lock worked'? : Problems : are with filenames that are illegal for NTFS - hosting a 2.11BSD source : tree on a W2003 NFS share does not work because of filenames containing : ':' :-). I've not tested what other characters are illegal. That would be a problem for hosting a ports tree on the NTFS nfs partition, no? : Another problem is that on the NTFS side there is no good way to backup, : copy, whatever the trees, because while NTFS handles Makefile and : makefile, no Windows tool can access both of them. Even worse thinks like : ADSM backup sometimes die with internal errors. That's ugly. : Mapping of UIDs and GIDs is rather magic. The FreeBSD side, the SFU tools : and cygwin all see different numbers which is rather annoying. The same is : with symbolic links. Symblic links point elsewhere? or have different destinations? Does it matter absolute or relative? : The file flags are not supported by the server. There are no extensions : that I know of. Same problem with FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS. Warner