3 ms·

NFS requires long admin experience and tuning for each use case. The only comment I can agree with you on is that the linux automounter is lackluster. We used B

NFS requires long admin experience and tuning for each use case. The only comment I can agree with you on is that the linux automounter is lackluster. We used BSD amd for many years with good success.

jabl 8y ago
> NFS requires long admin experience and tuning for each use case. Depends on what you're going to do with it. For something like sharing home directories, it works well enough. The defaults are usually pretty decent. There's unfortunately a lot of obsolete NFS tuning advice hanging around on the internet that seems to get cargo culted over and over again. Like the advice to set some specific rsize/wsize settings because the default is too small, oblivious to the fact that the NFS protocol allows the client and server to negotiate maximum sizes, and at least the Linux client and server have taken advantage of this negotiation mechanism for the past 2 decades or so.
- romeisendcoming 8y ago
  Well enough isn't good enough for production. Having worked in high volume, highly available environments for years soho scenarios are not good examples. Real world issues with complex NFS environments (mixed nfs3/4 + krb5p and multiple OS'es + automounters) or pNFS and gluster require more than tuning mount options. Tuning NFS for a latency averse and throughput intensive application operating on large netcdf and hdf5 file hierarchies is a worthy example.
  - jabl 8y ago
    > Well enough isn't good enough for production. How informative. > Having worked in high volume, highly available environments for years soho scenarios are not good examples. FWIW, I wasn't talking about SOHO. At least in my experience, defaults work well for home & shared work dirs for O(10k) users (not all simultaneously active, though). HA is a pain, though, if you want to DIY, I'll grant you that. > Real world issues with complex NFS environments (mixed nfs3/4 + krb5p and multiple OS'es + automounters) Complex? Sounds like a pretty standard NFS environment. > or pNFS and gluster require more than tuning mount options. Yeah, no personal experience there. What did you have to do there? We did have a clustered NFS appliance for HPC use a decade or so ago. People like to complain how Lustre is a beast to run, but IME Lustre has been smooth sailing compared to the grief that POS gave us. But that wasn't really the fault of the NFS protocol per se, it was just the architecture as well as the implementation of that appliance was crap, particularly so for HPC.
    - romeisendcoming 8y ago
      * routine buffer tweak is soho speak. * defaults don't work esp in mixed nfs 3/4 on linux across mixed 1/10 gb segment subnet boundaries. Try and get back to me. You will DOS your file service. * krb5p standard? First I've heard of it. FreeBSD won't do krb5p at nfs4 vanilla via linux nfs server. * Would never do it again. gluster is a shit storm of problems but nice when it works.

jabl 8y ago

> NFS requires long admin experience and tuning for each use case. Depends on what you're going to do with it. For something like sharing home directories, it works well enough. The defaults are usually pretty decent. There's unfortunately a lot of obsolete NFS tuning advice hanging around on the internet that seems to get cargo culted over and over again. Like the advice to set some specific rsize/wsize settings because the default is too small, oblivious to the fact that the NFS protocol allows the client and server to negotiate maximum sizes, and at least the Linux client and server have taken advantage of this negotiation mechanism for the past 2 decades or so.

romeisendcoming 8y ago
Well enough isn't good enough for production. Having worked in high volume, highly available environments for years soho scenarios are not good examples. Real world issues with complex NFS environments (mixed nfs3/4 + krb5p and multiple OS'es + automounters) or pNFS and gluster require more than tuning mount options. Tuning NFS for a latency averse and throughput intensive application operating on large netcdf and hdf5 file hierarchies is a worthy example.
- jabl 8y ago
  > Well enough isn't good enough for production. How informative. > Having worked in high volume, highly available environments for years soho scenarios are not good examples. FWIW, I wasn't talking about SOHO. At least in my experience, defaults work well for home & shared work dirs for O(10k) users (not all simultaneously active, though). HA is a pain, though, if you want to DIY, I'll grant you that. > Real world issues with complex NFS environments (mixed nfs3/4 + krb5p and multiple OS'es + automounters) Complex? Sounds like a pretty standard NFS environment. > or pNFS and gluster require more than tuning mount options. Yeah, no personal experience there. What did you have to do there? We did have a clustered NFS appliance for HPC use a decade or so ago. People like to complain how Lustre is a beast to run, but IME Lustre has been smooth sailing compared to the grief that POS gave us. But that wasn't really the fault of the NFS protocol per se, it was just the architecture as well as the implementation of that appliance was crap, particularly so for HPC.
  - romeisendcoming 8y ago
    * routine buffer tweak is soho speak. * defaults don't work esp in mixed nfs 3/4 on linux across mixed 1/10 gb segment subnet boundaries. Try and get back to me. You will DOS your file service. * krb5p standard? First I've heard of it. FreeBSD won't do krb5p at nfs4 vanilla via linux nfs server. * Would never do it again. gluster is a shit storm of problems but nice when it works.