|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
gabriel rosenkoetter <gr@eclipsed.net> writes:
> [Deleting the In-Reply-To: line on purpose so that this breaks into
> a separate thread in threaded mail readers.]
Oops, my bad.
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 10:00:21AM -0400, Chris Beggy wrote:
>> Gabriel makes a really good point, namely that Linux's nfs
>> implementation compares poorly with others. (In my case, it
>> compares poorly with Sun's nfs. In addition, Linux nfs doesn't
>> seem to play well with others, like some versions of FreeBSD
>> nfs.)
>
> Well, cheer up, it sucks a lot less than it used to. It mostly works
> as a client these days (which is, thankfully, all *I* ever need it
> to do with Solaris), though its speed is still significantly off.
Most days, I don't worry about it. Your post brought back bad memories.
> It's also unclear how well exporting certain file system types will
> work, especially across a reboot of the server. (FAT, for instance,
> has no way to store a lot of information that NFS presumes the
> backing FS implementation will be storing. Cf, file handle problems.)
Absolutely.
>> Is AFS a solution?
>
> Depends on the situation. AFS is definitely nowhere near as fast as
> NFS (v3, which I don't think Linux even speaks anyway); it's
> applicable in situations where you've got a lot of potentially
> disconnected nodes on a WAN but you want them to be able to see a
> shared file system whenever possible. CODA is probably a better
> solution in many cases these days.
Ah...
> Imho, a *real* solution to the networked file system problem
> involved embedded crypto (with symmetric keying, of course; using
> asymmetric keying for this would slow it down way too much, and
> you're not buying yourself much if you've got a mitm anyway) and
> truly distributed backing store.
>
> Berkeley's xFS (not to be confused with the X font server or SGI's
> XFS, which is a local file system) is a networked, distributed file
> system used in the GLUnix cluster out there. It rocks. You dedicate
> some portion of a given disk to the xFS cluster, then you can just
> write things into that partition. When a given node gets a write
> lock on a file, it'll be transfered to that node on writes.
> Subsequently, it's served from that node until someone else gets a
> write lock. (This works fine on a fast, tightly connected network.
> If you haven't got one of those, you already wanted AFS or CODA
> anyway.)
Sounds like a token passing scheme...
How about networked attached storage schemes (NAS)? Do they all
rely on sun nfs as well?
Chris
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|