Re: NFS alternative
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 11:44:54AM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| * D-Man (dsh8290@rit.edu) spake thusly:
| ...
| > Interesting ... from my understanding UDP is a connectionless
| > protocol, and as such packets aren't guaranteed to arrive at the
| > destination. It seems to me that for a file system, you really want
| > all the packets to arrive. How is this not a problem? (BTW, I'm just
| > beginning in networking programming and have no NFS experience yet,
| > but don't be afraid to give gory programming details :-))
|
| IIRC the idea was that you don't want to use NFS over slow and unreliable
| internet links anyway, you'll only use it on the LAN. Packet loss isn't
| much of an issue there; OTGH, performance penalty caused by TCP overhead
| is, esp. if you're trying to e.g. swap to an NFS drive.
|
| It's a reasonable trade-off, given that there were no gigahertz CPUs or
| gigabit ethernets. With modern hardware it's the other way around: we'd
| rather have reliable transport and a [usually negligible] TCP overhead.
Ok, that makes sense. How about if probability leaves us behind and a
packet is lost? Does NFS provide any way to correct for that or will
your filesystem be hosed?
-D
Reply to: