Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:46:39 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: attilio@freebsd.org Cc: FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Peter Holm <pho@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MPSAFE VFS -- List of upcoming actions Message-ID: <CAGH67wQ4nU9SbKxQE1v1SSkRdEYFejgLYJ--gfkrGxLKMY8z8A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndAHWPdD%2BuFoOYttQe9t11iLBn%2B1RRUh4U_xQbguRP=-cA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-FndAJtFx_OhqzDvBSLQ5pEaX730oF8Tbyk%2BkYbz9y1KaXXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndC=3Z9hNAHR9cwwypxhx%2Be27%2B6eiHWxOxRBij8H_wLb6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndBzoeXpFFHEmhiYZ9er=n0zXSXXo-vbrLX4ZmYdjDQMhg@mail.gmail.com> <50064FB2.3020409@entel.upc.edu> <CAJ-FndBWJpdCTnCYhoUsr0zyKuNF9Dg_H64tjScFg5OGq7NmqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTUWnj7ECa2ZRuNk-NPgnY82Ma5XNto9yvYZjEXokpSj8FuRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndAHWPdD%2BuFoOYttQe9t11iLBn%2B1RRUh4U_xQbguRP=-cA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 7/21/12, Antony Mawer <lists@mawer.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote= : >>> 2012/7/18, Gustau P=E9rez i Querol <gperez@entel.upc.edu>: >>>> >>>> Sorry fo the delay. >>>> >>>> About the ntfs support, I'd go with fuse and leave the most releva= nt >>>> filesystems in kernel space. In fact filesystems not particulary >>>> specific and not tied our kernel would go to userspace; thinks like >>>> smbfs, nwfs, ntfs, ext2 o ext4 for example should be in userspace (the >>>> list is incomplete and I don't really know if all of them are yet >>>> implemenent in userspace) in my opinion. That would make them easier t= o >>>> maintain (changes in the kernel would only affect fuse, once fixed all >>>> the userspace filesystem would work again). >>>> >>>> As a bonus, we would get many working fs based on fuse. In the >>>> server side gluster is a desirable thing; in the desktop things like >>>> gvfs (in the linux world gvfs is used not only by gnome but also by kd= e >>>> or xfce) or truecrypt >>> >>> I'm really concerned also about ntfs and smbfs at the moment. It seems >>> that there is also a FUSE smbfs port, but I never used it and I'm not >>> sure about its state at all. >> >> From what I understand, Apple have done a considerable amount of work >> on the FreeBSD-drived smbfs in the latest versions of OS X, based on >> the existing smbfs in tree: > > I've also found that there are 2 FUSE modules for smbfs but pho@ and > flo@ still haven't tested them. It may make sense to do so before we > commit FUSE to -CURRENT. However, thee is a plan by a $COMPANY to work > on the in-kernel version of smbfs and lock it before 10.0 is shipped. > In the unlikely events this doesn't happen we will came up with a > different plan (assuming we will adopt anyway the FUSE module, if it > proves to work well). > >> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/smb-552.5/ >> >> I imagine things like the filesystem locking are probably somewhat >> different, but in terms of updating smbfs itself to support newer >> features it may be a good base (licensing permitting). smbfs at the >> moment lacks in some areas such as DFS support, although I do not know >> if the OS X version is any different there (given the consumer focus >> of their OS, probably not). There was also a version spun off by >> OpenSolaris: >> >> http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+smbfs/ >> >> which again was based on the FreeBSD + Apple versions. >> >> I also have a vested interest in NWFS continuing to work - only from a >> legacy point of view where we still interoperate with a number of >> Netware 6 servers through this. While those will likely eventually go >> away, more than likely before we move to 10.x, if there is anyone >> capable of working on it we could supply a test environment. >> Unfortunately the actual locking of the NWFS and NCP modules is >> outside my sphere of knowledge... > > If you have NCP, do you think you can try this netncp I never > committed because lack of testing?: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2009-January/005617.html > > IIRC, Apple does a similar thing for netsmb (which suffers from a > similar problem as netncp). > Do you know if FUSE can support NWFS in any way? > > Starting providing stress-tests on the current codebase for > NWFS/NetNCP (and report bugs found, preparing a list) could be a good > way to start the locking effort. Interested developers then can look > into such a list and provide necessary insight. 1. The in-kernel smbfs is so far behind the SMB spec that I'm not sure that it's worthwhile maintaining it. It's SMB1.x based, which is pre-Vista; SMB2.1 has been out for a while and 3.0 is rolling around the corner in the next couple years (about the same time Windows XP is going to be EOS). 2. According to reports I have from internal sources, the Apple implementation is suboptimal from a performance perspective, in part because the Apple SMB client doesn't coalesce requests. I concur on the poor performance based on personal experience because NFS beats SMB hands down on OSX (comes close to saturating the physical media with NFS, and putters along at a fraction of the link speed with CIFS on my Macbook Pro with Lion), whereas running a Windows 7 client against samba36 yields performance I would expect (saturates gigabit). YMMV, -Garrett 1. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wQ4nU9SbKxQE1v1SSkRdEYFejgLYJ--gfkrGxLKMY8z8A>