Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:55:26 +0000 From: Vince <jhary@unsane.co.uk> To: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server Message-ID: <4578396E.6070503@unsane.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20061207.080007.1720215207.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20061206.143808.-1350498609.imp@bsdimp.com> <20061207090026.I17220@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20061207.080007.1720215207.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20061207090026.I17220@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> > Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> 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. > Just out of interest since cygwin was mentioned, has anyone tried out the cygwin NFS server rather than the SFU one? If it were combined with cygwin's "managed mount" mode it should in theory support ':' or other similar names that are normally illegal on windows, although they wouldnt be accessible from windows from what i remeber. Also I seem to remember things were always rather slow when I used to use cygwin, so it might not be worth it in terms of speed. Sorry if this is getting a little offtopic. Vince > Warner > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4578396E.6070503>