David Brodbeck wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Wojciech Puchar > <woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > > i tried nfsv4, tested under FreeBSD over localhost and it is roughly > > the > > same. am i doing something wrong? > > I found NFSv4 to be much *slower* than NFSv3 on FreeBSD, when I > benchmarked it a year or so ago. > If delegations are not enabled, there is additional overhead doing the Open operations against the server.
Delegations are not enabled by default in the server, because there isn't code to handle conflicts with opens done locally on the server. (ie. Delegations work iff the volumes exported over NFSv4 are not accessed locally in the server.) I think there are also some issues w.r.t. name caching in the client that still need to be resolved. NFSv4 should provide better byte range locking, plus NFSv4 ACLs and a few other things. However, it is more complex and will not perform better than NFSv3, at least until delegations are used (or pNFS, which is a part of NFSv4.1). rick > -- > David Brodbeck > System Administrator, Linguistics > University of Washington > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
