On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:35:14AM +0100, DENIEL Philippe wrote: > 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 ? I assumed it would require some stronger notion of a "connection" than UDP could provide. But maybe it could be made to work somehow. > >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) . Is the tcp state all that much more? > I was wondering if it > could be reliable to use it for NFSv4 inside a large cluster. Well, it'd require some spec changes in any case. --b. -- 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
