5 ms·

On the one hand, I've been wanting something like this for a while. On the other hand, I have so many bad memories of problems caused by NFS in production from

• acdha 12y ago
  At least the Linux NFS client made some big improvements in stability by the mid-2000s. FreeBSD took longer but I've heard they've fixed the kernel deadlocks as well. The other interesting note is that they apparently only support NFSv4, which has some welcome improvements: it uses TCP over a single port, avoids the entire portmap/statd/lockd train-wreck, UTF-8 everywhere, etc. One of the more interesting ones is that it has referrals (think HTTP redirect) so one server doesn't have to handle every request from every client and you can do things like load-balancing. Clients are also assumed to be smarter so e.g. local caching is safe because the server can notify you about changes to open files rather than requiring the client to poll.
  • evol262 12y ago
    It's almost certainly NFSv4 only so they can utilize pNFS
    • notacoward 12y ago
      Not necessarily. IIRC, pNFS is an optional feature of NFSv4.1, so they might not have implemented that flavor. If they had, I'm pretty sure they'd be advertising it. They're not shy.
      • evol262 12y ago
        Technical details aren't out yet. They may not have implemented it, but given their comments about performance and scaling, it would be a very good reason not to support NFSv3.
    • acdha 12y ago
      I'd be surprised if that didn't factor into the equation, although even just regular referrals would be acceptable for many uses where you can do some degree of load-balancing / fail-over with reasonable recovery times.