From owner-freebsd-isp Sun Aug 3 16:34:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA26113 for isp-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns2.harborcom.net (root@ns2.harborcom.net [206.158.4.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA26106 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (bradley@localhost) by ns2.harborcom.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04593 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 19:34:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 19:34:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Bradley Dunn X-Sender: bradley@ns2.harborcom.net To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: NQNFS and performance issues Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, LINT has the following warning about NQNFS: # Note: 4.4BSD NQNFS lease checking has relatively high cost for # _local_ I/O as well as remote I/O. Don't use it unless you will # using NQNFS. Does anyone have an idea of the performance hit NQNFS has? Is it worth the drop in performance to get the extra coherency? Also, to what extent does the use of NQNFS help overcome the lack of support for file locking over NFS? Thanks, pbd -- Going to church does not make a person religious, nor does going to school make a person educated, any more than going to a garage makes a person a car.