From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: "Roy M." <setesting001@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is NFS v4 stable and recommend to use now?
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:52:47 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081003215247.GJ19057@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <beaf78240810021034k3cb7db69p7ac458b8a3cfbb28-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 01:34:51AM +0800, Roy M. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:17 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:49:50AM +0800, Roy M. wrote:
> >
> > If you're just doing big I/O to a few files, that may be all you care
> > about. If you're doing something more complicated then the situation
> > isn't well understood yet.
> >
>
> Do you mean for few files with large size stored in NFS, then maybe
> not benefit too much from NFS4, while if I have many files, need to
> fetch to client in parallel and in high concurrency, then it might be
> a good choice? (in fact, I also heard client side caching in v4 is
> better)
I doubt the pattern of I/O really matters much--it's the opens and
closes themselves that matter.
(In v3, close-to-open cache consistency requires that the client always
fetch file attributes from the server on an open. That means open() is
always going to take at least the ping time to the server. In v4 in
some situations the client can do the open with no call to the server at
all--by comparison such an open is almost instantaneous. If you're
doing a ton of opens all in a row, that may make a difference.)
--b.
>
>
> Besides, can I say v4 is the recommended to be used in production right now?
>
> Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-03 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-02 16:49 Is NFS v4 stable and recommend to use now? Roy M.
[not found] ` <beaf78240810020949j703d95cvab1c44f33bff7019-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-02 17:17 ` J. Bruce Fields
2008-10-02 17:34 ` Roy M.
[not found] ` <beaf78240810021034k3cb7db69p7ac458b8a3cfbb28-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-03 21:52 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2008-10-04 13:34 ` Roy M.
[not found] ` <beaf78240810040634i672904c7g51e02855227a9d7c-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-04 20:48 ` J. Bruce Fields
2008-10-05 0:20 ` Marcelo Leal
2008-10-02 17:41 ` Jim Rees
2008-10-02 19:15 ` Peter Staubach
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081003215247.GJ19057@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=setesting001@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.