Subject: Re: NFS capability
To: Ram Chandar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Maxwell <email@example.com>
Date: 02/11/2003 14:34:39
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:18:52PM +0530, Ram Chandar wrote:
> BTW what is the situation with NFS Server capability with NetBSD
> and other BSDs? Better than GNU/Linux? or is SUN the king here?
I've seen a few examples of things that might be relevant.
As recently as a couple years ago, I know someone who tried to run an
office CVSROOT on an Linux box. The cvs clients were accessing the root
with nfs (which I'd recommend against, since cvs wants better locking
guarantees (i.e. some) than nfs provides (i.e. none ;-) ).
Three or more simultaneous cvs checkouts would crash the server. A
NetBSD server in the same role would not crash, regardless of number of
Linux as an nfs client also seems to do bad things. In a setup I have
with a NetApp server and a Linux client, I can update content on the
NetApp from another client, and the Linux client will not see the
changes for tens of seconds. (i.e. repeated 'ls' shows the state of a
directory before the added content, long after it's added.) Linux seems
to be making bad caching decisions.
I've heard anecdotal evidince of similar stories from lots of people,
leading me to conclude that NetBSD's nfs inplementation is far superior
to the Linux one.
While NetBSD might not serve the accelerated OpenGL needs of your client
at the moment, it probably would make a much more stable nfs server than
David Maxwell, firstname.lastname@example.orgemail@example.com --> Mastery of UNIX, like
mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear,
but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live
in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville