Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 08:00:07 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: harti@freebsd.org, hartmut.brandt@dlr.de Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server Message-ID: <20061207.080007.1720215207.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20061207090026.I17220@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <20061206.143808.-1350498609.imp@bsdimp.com> <20061207090026.I17220@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20061207090026.I17220@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> writes:
: MWL>Does anybody have experience with using FreeBSD 4.x or 6.x NFS clients
: MWL>against a Windows 2003 NFS server? What is the performance relative
: MWL>to using a FreeBSD NFS server? What is the stability? Does locking
: MWL>work? Does the Windows 2003 server have extensions that grok file
: MWL>system flags?
:
: I use this regularily (well, -CURRENT). I have no numbers, but performance
: is ok. I have the home directories on a W2003k server and it 'feels' fast
: enough.
We see FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS feeling fast enough for most things, but
when we do a full build of our system from scratch it takes 10 hours
over NFS vs 1 hour on a local disk. We're worried that if we were to
try to do heavy NFS traffic to a Win2003 server with SFU this would be
even slower.
: The only problem I see is a lot of 'file server not reponding' and 'file
: server up again' (with 2-3 seconds in between). This is usually when
: saving a large mail from pine. Linux clients see the same problem, so I
: suppose it is a problem on the SFU side.
So building large binaries might be a problem?
: Locking seems to work.
Does "seems to work" mean it really does work, or does SFU just do the
old trick of saying 'ok, your lock worked'?
: Problems
: are with filenames that are illegal for NTFS - hosting a 2.11BSD source
: tree on a W2003 NFS share does not work because of filenames containing
: ':' :-). I've not tested what other characters are illegal.
That would be a problem for hosting a ports tree on the NTFS nfs
partition, no?
: Another problem is that on the NTFS side there is no good way to backup,
: copy, whatever the trees, because while NTFS handles Makefile and
: makefile, no Windows tool can access both of them. Even worse thinks like
: ADSM backup sometimes die with internal errors.
That's ugly.
: Mapping of UIDs and GIDs is rather magic. The FreeBSD side, the SFU tools
: and cygwin all see different numbers which is rather annoying. The same is
: with symbolic links.
Symblic links point elsewhere? or have different destinations? Does
it matter absolute or relative?
: The file flags are not supported by the server. There are no extensions
: that I know of.
Same problem with FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061207.080007.1720215207.imp>