From owner-cvs-all Mon Feb 15 02:09:07 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA12617 for cvs-all-outgoing; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:09:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA12606; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:09:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from localhost (dfr@localhost) by herring.nlsystems.com (8.9.2/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA50548; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:06:56 GMT (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:06:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson To: Matthew Dillon cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , obrien@NUXI.com, "Jordan K. Hubbard" , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc amd.map In-Reply-To: <199902142131.NAA08466@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :Yeah, I don't trust nfs v3. > : > :> > Modified files: > :> > etc amd.map > :> > Log: > :> > Use more sensible defaults. > :> > :> Any reason not to use what freefall uses as our default? > :> > :> freefall: opts:=rw,grpid,resvport,vers=3,proto=udp,nosuid,nodev,intr > :> default: opts:=rw,grpid,resvport,vers=2,proto=udp,nosuid,nodev > :> > :> -- > :> -- David (obrien@NUXI.com -or- obrien@FreeBSD.org) > > I only trust NFS V3 for read-only mounts myself. The only R+W NFS V3 > mounts I use are on my test boxes. If I were pushed to it, I might use > NFS for lightly-used R+W mounts. > > Generally speaking, I don't trust NFS at all in a heavy-use production > environment and so don't use it in a heavy-use production environment. > Of course, this could well be due to getting badly scarred by NFS 3 years > ago under 2.0.something. It has gotten a lot more reliable since then. I use v3 all the time for NFS mounts (not very heavy use though). If you are doing any writing at all, v2 is dismal. With v3 on a 100baseTX network, performance and reliability are quite good (especially since Matt fixed the recent set of bugs). I think that the reason NFS appears to have problems sometimes is down to the extremely complex interface which we have for filesystems (VFS+buf+VM). The NFS client is possibly the most complex filesystem we have and if any part of that interface changes, NFS will most likely be affected. Since work happens on these systems all the time, the NFS client code decays rapidly. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message