From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 9 06:35:53 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DDC16A417 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kheuer2@gwdg.de) Received: from gwdu60.gwdg.de (gwdu60.gwdg.de [134.76.8.60]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5649A13C43E for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:35:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kheuer2@gwdg.de) Received: from gwdu60.gwdg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gwdu60.gwdg.de (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m096ZqTs049475; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:35:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kheuer2@gwdg.de) Received: from localhost (kheuer2@localhost) by gwdu60.gwdg.de (8.13.8/8.13.6/Submit) with ESMTP id m096Zq9n049472; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:35:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kheuer2@gwdg.de) X-Authentication-Warning: gwdu60.gwdg.de: kheuer2 owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:35:51 +0100 (CET) From: Konrad Heuer To: Chuck Swiger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080109072743.Y99137@gwdu60.gwdg.de> References: <20080103073138.G99137@gwdu60.gwdg.de> <872A6988-2C89-4AF1-99E6-57B744C799CB@mac.com> <20080108075717.A99137@gwdu60.gwdg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OSX NFS-Server && FreeBSD NFS Client X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:35:53 -0000 On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Chuck Swiger wrote: >>> You really don't want to export a filesystem which itself is being mounted >>> remotely. If you want to provide SMB filesharing for these files, run >>> Samba on the OS X machine(s) directly. >> >> Knowing all the drawbacks including reduced bandwith, there are some >> important organizational reasons, thus I want to do so. Moreover, Samba ist >> just one application on the NFS clients, although an important one. > > While I certainly wish you the best of luck, previous experience suggests > that the drawbacks to this approach include not functioning properly. > > NFS is a stateless protocol, except insofar as rpc.lockd in theory provides > lockf/flock style locking over the network-- yet Samba/CIFS wants to allow > extensive use of client side opportunistic locking, which means that Samba > really, really wants to run off of a local filesystem. Yes, I agree, locking is a serious problem. The whole thing runs with Linux NFS servers for a couple of month now (though I want to migrate to OSX NFS servers), and I introduced "fake oplocks = yes" in smb.conf some month ago (which obviously improved stability) and did also some experimenting with the -L-option of mount_nfs. Thank you very much for reply! Best regards Konrad Heuer GWDG, Am Fassberg, 37077 Goettingen, Germany, kheuer2@gwdg.de