3 ms·
It could very well be Server 2008 instead of Server 2003. A perfect NFSv4 implemenation, configured properly, provides a very useful set of guarantees. However
by briansmith 17y ago
It could very well be Server 2008 instead of Server 2003.
A perfect NFSv4 implemenation, configured properly, provides a very useful set of guarantees. However, the quality of NFSv4 implementations has been an issue. Especially, Linux's NFSv4 server implementation has historically had many flaws. Plus, people often mount NFS using the NFSv3 protocol instead of NFSv4, and/or reduce the safety guarantees with the goal of improving performance.
This is why almost everybody recommends NOT to use NFS to store anything critical. For example, SQLite's documentation states very clearly that you shouldn't store SQLite databases on NFS. And, this is why Oracle supports NFS (a) only with a list of specific NFS server implementations (mostly NetApp), and (b) using its own built in NFS client implementation (not the operating system's transparent NFS client).
I think we're far off from calling XP irrelevant. People were still buying XP pre-installed PCs last year. I would say 2012 will be earliest mass-market software can realistically start ignoring XP.