Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:24:36 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> To: Hanspeter Roth Bsag <roth@bsag.ch> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ext2fs support robust? Message-ID: <20000905102436.A3926@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20000905152852.A4417@bs11.bsag.ch>; from "Hanspeter Roth Bsag" on Tue Sep 5 15:28:52 GMT 2000 References: <20000903154433.A13312@bs11.bsag.ch> <20000903140003.D18862@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000904100032.A21607@bs11.bsag.ch> <20000904141605.B14338@dan.emsphone.com> <20000905152852.A4417@bs11.bsag.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Sep 05), Hanspeter Roth Bsag said: > > FreeBSD offers much better NFS than Linux, and for most people the > > only > > In which respect is FreeBsd's Nfs much better than Linux'? The main thing is that it supports NFSv3, which makes for write speeds as fast as regular filesystem writes. Without NFSv3, you have to sync writes to disk before acknowledging them back to the client, which is pretty slow. NFSv3 also handles files over 4gb, but that's not an issue with Linux yet. > > thing they need NFS locking for is mail delivery, and dotlocking > > works just as well in that case. > > I'm using procmail, mutt and tkbiff. I would have to reconfigure at > least three programs. How can I be sure that no other programs rely > on locking? I believe both procmail and mutt lock the mail file in as many ways as possible by defualt, which means that dotlocking is always used in addition to whatever filesystem-locking is supported (if any). Dunno about tkbiff. > We also have Solaris clients that feel better with Nfs locking. > > -Hanspeter -- Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000905102436.A3926>