From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 22 00:18:47 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC74CEF for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 00:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from esa-annu.net.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDF0C9D for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 00:18:46 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2BNBQCcH+lU/95baINag1haBIMEv3wKgjiCb0oCgVsBAQEBAQF8hA8BAQEDAQEBASAEJyALBRYYAgINGQIpAQkmBggHBAETBwIEiAYIDbpPl2kBAQEBBgEBAQEBAQEBGoEhiXKEAhsBARsBMweCaIFDBYpKiGaDRoM6OIUsjDQiggIcgW4gMQeBBDl/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,622,1418101200"; d="scan'208";a="193923662" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-annu.net.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 21 Feb 2015 19:18:40 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE347B3F86; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:18:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:18:39 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: Rainer Duffner Message-ID: <778130683.8017836.1424564319905.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <1105076308.8017441.1424564136910.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Subject: Re: The magic of ZFS and NFS (2nd try) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [172.17.95.11] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.6_GA_2926 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.6_GA_2926) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Christian Baer , Jordan Hubbard X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 00:18:47 -0000 I wrote: > Rainer Duffner wrote: > >=20 > > > Am 21.02.2015 um 19:23 schrieb Jordan Hubbard > > > : > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >> On Feb 21, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Christian Baer > > >> wrote: > > >>=20 > > >> But why shouldn't I use /etc/exports? I have read people writing > > >> this (don't > > >> use /etc/exports) in forums when searching for answers, however > > >> the current > > >> manpage for zfs says this: > > >=20 > > > FreeNAS has more experience with sharing things from ZFS than > > > anyone else in the BSD community (that=E2=80=99s not hyperbole, it=E2= =80=99s > > > simply fact). We don=E2=80=99t use any of the zfs sharing flags. Th= ose > > > were intended more for Solaris (sharesmb, for example - FreeBSD > > > lets you do that, but what does it *mean* when you don=E2=80=99t have= a > > > native CIFS service?). FreeBSD has never integrated ZFS=E2=80=99s > > > notion > > > of sharing or, for that matter, a number of other things like > > > drive hot sparing and automatic replacement, and you=E2=80=99re seein= g > > > the > > > results of ZFS=E2=80=99s solaris roots still not lining up 100% with > > > their > > > new FreeBSD home. That=E2=80=99s all. > > >=20 > > > I would simplify things, just as FreeNAS has (for good reasons), > > > and simply have ZFS be =E2=80=9Ca filesystem=E2=80=9D from FreeBSD=E2= =80=99s perspective > > > and share it just as you would UFS. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Interesting. > >=20 > > I admit I don=E2=80=99t use NFS v4. > > Is it much faster than NFS v3 these days? > >=20 > Nope. If you are lucky, you'll be about performance neutral when > switching from v3 -> v4. If you access lots of files, you probably > won't be performance neutral, due to the extra overhead of Opens, > etc. >=20 > NFSv4 isn't really a replacement for NFSv3 imho. It fills a > different, > although somewhat overlapping solution space. It provides better byte > range locking, ACLs and, when pNFS becomes commonly available, better > scalability for I/O performance on relatively large servers > (especially > if the clients are accessing a fairly small number of large files). > If you don't need any of the above, you don't need/want NFSv4, again > imho. >=20 Oh, and NFSv4 allows clients to cross server mount point boundaries. Some will find this a useful feature, others a hassle. > Sorry to wander off topic, but Rainer did ask;-) rick >=20 > > But I=E2=80=99ve always added the line from exports(5) into the sharenf= s > > property like > >=20 > > zfs get sharenfs datapool/nfs/ds3-documents > > NAME PROPERTY VALUE > > SOURCE > > datapool/nfs/ds3-documents sharenfs -maproot=3D1003 -network > > 10.10.10.0 -mask 255.255.255.0 inherited from datapool/nfs > >=20 > > These lines get written into /etc/zfs/exports > >=20 > > I like it that way because if a filesystem is destroyed, I don=E2=80=99= t > > have > > to remember removing it from /etc/exports. > >=20 > > I also admit I=E2=80=99m heavily influenced by Solaris on this particul= ar > > setting=E2=80=A6 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"