Re: RFC 1037 NFILE implementations around?

In article <cs93ajiankq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Andreas Davour <anteRUN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@xxxxxxxx> writes:

On Sep 29, 5:23 pm, Andreas Davour <ante...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Did the VLM drop support for the LMFS? Too bad. NFS sucks so it couldn't
be worse than that.

I forget when, but I remember benchmarking (I think) a 3670 which had
slower performance to its local disk than a 3/120 did accessing
storage over NFS. (Both disks were Fuji eagles, the NFS access was via
a 3/180 or /280 and thickwire).

Yup, NFS sucks all right.

Note that the Symbolics operating system does not use NFILE
to access its local file system. It accesses the LMFS directly.

What was already often faster than local LMFS access is
NFS access to a remote Unix file system. Symbolics machines
were known to have slow disk access. Though I have no idea
why that was the case: slow bus to the disk? inefficient
access to blocks on the disk by the OS? slow LMFS
implementation?. I'd guess it is a mix of those.

I have no idea what a 3/120 is.

It would be an old SUN model, though Wikipedia does not mention it.
I'm not sure it existed. The 3/110 was popular, though.


Talking about I/O performance in detail is a big can of worms, since it
means subtle interaction between hardware and software. You say a 3670
was slower than a 3/120 and that might be correct. To what extent that
was because NFS was good/bad is another matter.

I have seem NFS break unexpectedly in terrible ways and that sucked. The
rest of my comment was not an invitation to a serious comparison. Who
the heck would pit them against each other today anyway?

NFS is short for 'Nightmare File System'.

See chapter 14 of the Unix Haters Handbook:

http://www.simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf




/Andreas

--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
.

Relevant Pages

  • How can I determine version of apache running?? (pz4wfq .)
    ... NFS problem ... Determining who consumes disk space ... In a fact I am writing this question here because everything is working fine with file system shared on Sun/Solaris box, while it is not working with file system shared on EMC/Celerra. ... I am using disk less clients that boots RedHat 8.0 over BOOTP and mount root file system over nfs. ...
    (SunManagers)
  • Re: CP/M 2009 discussion ? Whats the point ?
    ... has to be done at the BDOS level. ... The BDOS disk calls look very ... It is interesting that the NFS client is ... The BIOS level only has disk blocks into the file system. ...
    (comp.os.cpm)
  • Re: CP/M 2009 discussion ? Whats the point ?
    ... The BDOS disk calls look very ... It is interesting that the NFS client is ... That of course is the client or CP/M side. ... The BIOS level only has disk blocks into the file system. ...
    (comp.os.cpm)
  • A peek at the future of storage
    ... The characteristics of a solid state disk such as this one are very ... Now a word about how one measures NFS performance. ... Test results using the Violin SSD device: ... from our point of view is that snapshotting via ddsnap does not have a ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches
    ... Would a disk cache on SSD make any sense? ... including NFS patches ... Allow you to reduce the latency of slow network links by diverting ...
    (Linux-Kernel)