[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Just on NFS which I posted about a while back. I got spectacular NFSv4 results 4x performance of SMB in a corporate environment with Netapp. The tricky bit for me is mapping permissions, still getting my head around UID mapping. So more recent NFS version, with 10.9/10.8 clients has been really good. Regards Matt On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:32, bad apple wrote: > On 07/04/14 08:55, Philip Hudson wrote: >> On 6 April 2014 17:14, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> For all its faults everyone I know who networks Linux/Unix boxes >>> seriously at the file system level uses NFS as the de-facto standard, or >>> more modern distributed or clustered file systems for high availability, >>> or clustering systems. >> >> Simon and bad should be taken as authoritative on this over anything I >> might say. I last worked in an all-*n*x shop (all Solaris) a long time >> ago, and even then file server admin was not officially part of my >> job. While we had NFS home directory shares that were trouble-free >> because they were professionally admined, for all ad-hoc stuff I found >> NFS so stinkingly buggy and fragile and unreliable and slow and >> high-maintenance and undermaintained that I would always use anything >> else (including netatalk, the FLOSS AppleTalk Filing System server) in >> preference. So it may just be outworn prejudice talking when I >> recommend Samba over NFS; I've never been disappointed by Samba itself >> (ignoring its damnable web configurator) enough to bother >> re-investigating NFS. >> >> And yes, I do squirm at recommending a Microsoft standard. I take >> comfort from the fact that the FLOSS Samba project sets the de facto >> standard, with MS itself now playing catch-up. Nice to see them lose >> in a straight fight with FLOSS. >> > > Well, to be fair to you, if you were using Solaris or even SunOS back in > the days then NFS would have been really, really nasty and probably > would have broken a lot, especially if we're talking far enough back to > be pre-NIS when it was still Yellow Pages (BT soon put paid to that name > here in the UK). > > I did a lot of Sun/SGI work back then and NFS was flaky as hell, despite > the fact that Sun actually invented it in the first place. Once you > threw HP-UX, AIX and all the million other types of Unix into the mix > (and of course none of them used the standard NFS ports either, or > rather they each had their own standard) it was amazing any of those > £100k machines ever got any work done as they could barely talk to each > other. > > So yes, your old reminiscences of NFS being absolutely terrible back > then are spot on. It only got bearable once NFS3 had been out for a good > while and trickled down ever so slowly to all the different suppliers. > > For whatever reasons (I think it was actually part of one of their > *many* legal settlements, with an unusual dash of pragmatism) MS are now > fully cooperating with Jeremy and the Samba team which has led to the > excellent release 4, and which is rapidly catching up with the MS > reference implementation. Now if only the greedy b'tards would enter > into the same spirit of cooperation with Office formats we might finally > be starting to see a thawing of the old MS/Linux cold war. I'm not > holding my breath on that though, it's perhaps their single biggest > stick to hit people with (one would think a business wouldn't want to > bully their own customer base, but hey, that's the international > software industry^H racket^H for you...) > > Regards > > -- > The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG > http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list > FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq