Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:46:26 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: iSCSI vs. SMB with ZFS. Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212171743340.1564@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <kan8tu$f76$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <CACpH0Md5H2C0a4Cc8iwFa5M6v3oGFXmydbvHPs_MOY53CXiYfA@mail.gmail.com> <kan8tu$f76$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> With a network file system (either SMB or NFS, it doesn't matter), you > need to ask the server for *each* of the following situations: > * to ask the server if a file has been changed so the client can use > cached data (if the protocol supports it) > * to ask the server if a file (or a portion of a file) has been locked > by another client not really if there is only one user of file - then windows know this, but change to behaviour you described when there are more users. AND FINALLY the latter behaviour fails to work properly since windows XP (worked fine with windows 98). If you use programs that read/write share same files you may be sure data corruption would happen. you have to set locking = yes oplocks = no level2 oplocks = no to make it work properly but even more slow!. > This basically means that for almost every single IO, you need to ask > the server for something, which involves network traffic and round-trip > delays. Not that. The problem is that windows do not use all free memory for caching as with local or "local" (iSCSI) disk.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1212171743340.1564>