On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:26:40 +0400 dima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First, searching through the archives I'm about to say "No". > > My goal is to provide NFS service to many FreeBSD clients sharing the > exports. The usage pattern appears to be "many reads and not as much > writes". The deployment might look like the following: a SAN and 2 > NFS servers sharing its LUNs. The servers use hot-standby scheme > provided by CARP (or its equivalent). Many FreeBSD clients would > share their exports. I wish servers ran FreeBSD also since it's the > best known OS for the company administrators. > > The majors are: > - no data corruption > - no hangs (this seems to be the largest problem with current > implementation) > - client retry on failure > - a reasonable read speed > > My questions: > 1. NFS/UDP (it's stateless!) is considered to be "evil". Why > (assuming I can grant a balanced network bandwidth)? 2. NFS server > implementation seems to be very buggy. Any success stories? Well, NFS > servers can easily run Linux, Solaris etc. 3. Is at least > implementation of NFS client (either kernel-side or user-space) > stable enough for production use? Client OS replacement is impossible > (hardly suitable, really) in my project. > > PS: The competing options are either SMB or CODA for now. Any other > suggestions? > > PPS: I'd be happy to hear that FreeBSD supports at least one really > clustered FS (proprietary ones are also OK). But I think I wouldn't :(
I have been using NFS on FreeBSD for years and never have a had a problem. As long as the network is sound it works nicely. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
