Re: What linux lacks most - a decent remote fs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Tom Horsley wrote:

What kind of problems do you see? It can be hard to get firewall openings right and it depends on uid's matching at the client and server for file ownership and permissions, but those things either work right or not at all. You shouldn't see reliability or performance problems unless you have hundreds of busy clients.

What I mostly see is every imaginable problem on different machines
at different times :-).

I think the root cause is related to having vast numbers of different
versions of unix/linux on different machines all of which claim
to "support" NFS, but which together are highly unreliable (especially
the ones too old to support tcp connections).

Yes, there were a lot of bad implementations, but usually there were enough other things wrong with those system that you'd have replaced or updated them by now anyway.

The worst problem is data corruption on writes, especially writing
large files across NFS, they will often wind up with large chunks of
zero bytes in place of the actual data.

Hmmm, this sounds more like a locking issue.  Did you have multiple writers?

There is one particular machine (in theory running the same dadgum
version of linux as several others) where some sort of nonsense
persists in always getting stale NFS filehandle messages any time
I try to read specific individual files. I always have to unmount
and remount the filesystem when it gets like this. (Neither system
was down or not talking at any point, just some fiddling of the
files in question, replacing them with symlinks, then suddenly the
stale filehandle messages start).

Open files are cached on the client - renaming stuff on the server while a client has it open could cause some odd results.

The protocols are in theory supposed to support negotiation of the
correct NFS version when connecting to older machines, but that
almost never works, we have to manually fiddle fstab entries to
explicitly give the proper nfsver option or we get things like
the filesystem is "mounted" but all attempts to access files get
errors.

Herding cats has got to have fewer irritations than using NFS :-).

I don't suppose you could cut down on the number of versions that have to co-exist... Or at least get it down to one or a few server types.

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux