Hi
The Linux server allows it, but I've been considering that a
(low-priority) bug, so it wouldn't be safe to assume it will continue
working.
I am mostly thinking at the client side using as well udp and tcp. Would
the "NFSv4 client over UDP" behaves differently then the same client
over TCP ?
That aside, if you have a perfect network,
I can trust my network. It's not a WAN, it's located into a very massive
cluster (it's kind of "internal LAN"). It's a very high throughput
network (IB based) so I believe there are less "hardware based reason"
to loose packets.
NFSv4.0 at least will
probably work.
OK.
(Not 4.1 since backchannel setup will fail?)
What is erroneous in using UDP for NFSv4.1 backchannels ?
Are you really sure that you can't make tcp scale to thousands of
clients?
I am a bit afraid of a "No more file descriptors" effect. If I have one
TCP socket per client and thousands of clients, I have less remaining
fds for other purposes. Another point : UDP is a "cheap" protocol. I can
have bunches of clients without overloading the server (a new client
will almost cost nothing to the server, just the cost of a new clientid
negotiation) . I was wondering if it could be reliable to use it for
NFSv4 inside a large cluster.
Philippe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
