Re: RaiserFS via NFS
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Michelle Konzack wrote in part:
>But use a self-compiled Linux with nfs and nfsd compiled WITH
>"TCP" and "v3" support.
>if you mount your server add "nfsvers=3,tcp" to it otherwise it
>will use UDP which is realy not good.
Why? from my (maybe wrong?) reading of the docs, the advantage of TCP is
that it is hard to spoof given that it is connection oriented.
I plan to run NFS on a completely internal network and configure iptables
to drop packets from outside the network. The NFS server will not be
connected to the outside world and the application servers will have 2
NICs one for the internal Gb/sec 10.0.0.* network and one for the outside
world.
Andrew Miehs writes in part:
> I suggest you all read
> http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/newdoc/NFS_README.html
> Especially when it comes to mail. With Maildir you will have less
> problems than with mbox, but you still do NOT have atomic transactions,
> and as such you will at some stage statistically have a problem.
Porcupine says in part:
[empathizes added]
> switch to maildir style, which needs *****no***** application-level lock
> controls).
Other people say:
>[DONT USE NFS FOR MAIL OR YOUR PRIVATE PARTS WILL
> BE EATEN BY GOLD FISH]
See: the spec for maildir
http://www.qmail.org/man/man5/maildir.html
I can't say I've ever seen a convincing argument against maildir's
safety...
Am I right in that nobody on the list knows whether or not any advantage
to running raiserFS is swallowed by NFS?
Reply to: