Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!seunet!news2.swip.net!nike.volvo.se!cyklop.volvo.se!peter From: peter@cyklop.volvo.se (peter hakanson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison) Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix Date: 17 Jan 1996 17:00:15 GMT Organization: Volvo Corp. Lines: 78 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <4dj9uv$ln5@nike.volvo.se> References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4d43bt$es8@park.uvsc.edu> <4d6v8e$b1e@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4d9has$qo9@park.uvsc.edu> <4de3db$n6a@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4depms$bi5@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cyklop.volvo.se X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2010 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2164 comp.unix.solaris:57522 comp.unix.aix:68941 As anyone who have tried using NFS over slow/irregular links NFS-over TCP is a BIG improvment ( afactor of 10 can easily be acieved in some cases) I have tried. On a LAN UDP is faster, as expected. So do dispute NFS over TCP unless you have experience about it! Drive Carefully! Terry Lambert (terry@lambert.org) wrote: : thurlow@peyto.eng.sun.com (Robert Thurlow) wrote: : ] : ] In article <4d9has$qo9@park.uvsc.edu>, : ] Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote: : ] : ] >thurlow@peyto.eng.sun.com (Robert Thurlow) wrote: : ] : ] >] NFS in 5.x has the same or better consistency guarantees as your : ] >] favorite 4.x version. And in 5.5, you get NFS Version 3 and NFS : ] >] over TCP, which work so well and so fast I was amazed when I : ] >] started here. You're clearly out in left field on this topic. : ] : ] >Sorry, "the same" is not an argument for change. If you had a : ] >tangible "or better", then you'd have a case. : ] : ] You implied that SunOS 5.x was faster because it played fast and : ] loose with consistency guarantees. This is simply untrue, and : ] I'm calling you on it; consistency has been tightened up in many : ] areas, and not made weaker anywhere. If you believe otherwise, : ] please be specific. : Client caching prior to NFSv3 violates the protocol specification. : Server caching of writes violates the protocol specification. : 4.x did not do server write caching by default. : I will not argue that NFS security under 5.x isn't tighter (and : therefore less usable) than under 4.x. Most of the "consitency : guarantees" I see in the 5.x release notes are security issues, : and not relevant to the discussion. : The one possible win (and you have yet to claim it, or anything : other than a blanket statement that 5.x is faster than 4.x, : without providing numbers or rationale) is kernel threading of : the biod's. This is a minor win at best, since the process : context switch on NFS is not that high, relatively, because the : anonymity of clients breaks FS locality of refernce, which : renders the cache and register windows useless. Thus effective : context switch overhead vs. a system-call-that-never-returns is : negligible. : Must I both make and refute your points? It is encumbent on : *you* to defend your speed claims with specific examples. : To get this off on the right foot: : ] >] NFS in 5.x has the same or better consistency guarantees as your : ] >] favorite 4.x version. And in 5.5, you get NFS Version 3 and NFS : ] >] over TCP, which work so well and so fast I was amazed when I : ] >] started here. You're clearly out in left field on this topic. : I don't believe you. Please give specific references. : Regards, : Terry Lambert : terry@cs.weber.edu : --- : Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present : or previous employers. -- -- Peter Hakanson VolvoData Dep 2580 phone +46 31 66 74 27