Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 07:35:51 +0100 (CET) From: Konrad Heuer <kheuer2@gwdg.de> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OSX NFS-Server && FreeBSD NFS Client Message-ID: <20080109072743.Y99137@gwdu60.gwdg.de> In-Reply-To: <B4BB02A8-CB30-4180-8971-E7F5CAC5F8FF@mac.com> References: <20080103073138.G99137@gwdu60.gwdg.de> <872A6988-2C89-4AF1-99E6-57B744C799CB@mac.com> <20080108075717.A99137@gwdu60.gwdg.de> <B4BB02A8-CB30-4180-8971-E7F5CAC5F8FF@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Chuck Swiger wrote: >>> You really don't want to export a filesystem which itself is being mounted >>> remotely. If you want to provide SMB filesharing for these files, run >>> Samba on the OS X machine(s) directly. >> >> Knowing all the drawbacks including reduced bandwith, there are some >> important organizational reasons, thus I want to do so. Moreover, Samba ist >> just one application on the NFS clients, although an important one. > > While I certainly wish you the best of luck, previous experience suggests > that the drawbacks to this approach include not functioning properly. > > NFS is a stateless protocol, except insofar as rpc.lockd in theory provides > lockf/flock style locking over the network-- yet Samba/CIFS wants to allow > extensive use of client side opportunistic locking, which means that Samba > really, really wants to run off of a local filesystem. Yes, I agree, locking is a serious problem. The whole thing runs with Linux NFS servers for a couple of month now (though I want to migrate to OSX NFS servers), and I introduced "fake oplocks = yes" in smb.conf some month ago (which obviously improved stability) and did also some experimenting with the -L-option of mount_nfs. Thank you very much for reply! Best regards Konrad Heuer GWDG, Am Fassberg, 37077 Goettingen, Germany, kheuer2@gwdg.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080109072743.Y99137>