Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:12406 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3236 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!sundog.tiac.net!bhhome.ci.net!bill From: bill@bhhome.ci.net (Bill Heiser) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Whats wrong with Linux networking ??? Date: 9 Aug 1994 10:59:44 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Lines: 26 Message-ID: <327nj0$sfq@sundog.tiac.net> References: <Cu107E.Mz3@curia.ucc.ie> <31trcr$9n@euterpe.owl.de> <3256t1$rbn@ra.nrl.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: bhhome.ci.net cmetz@sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Craig Metz) writes: >>- NFS was *slooow* > No arguing this one. Linux's NFS is still in need of serious work. The *speed* of LINUX NFS isn't the real problem. The reason it's so slow is that by default it uses a 1K blocksize. You can increase the rsize and wsize to 8K, like Sun, and the performance improves dramatically. However the *REAL* problem with LINUX NFS is that it does not currently do any file locking. So you can run into some real problems if, for example, you NFS-mount your mail spool directory from another machine and both machines try to write to it. Someone in c.o.l.d. mentioned that he wanted to work on this but couldn't find the specs for the NFS file-locking mechanism. I hope he (or someone) does soon! I don't want to have to dump LINUX, with it's nice complete "fully operational system out of the box" and go with the piecemeal *bsd products (not that there's anything wrong with *bsd, it's just less convenient to install since it requires days or weeks of hunting for utilities, compiling them, installing them, etc, whereas with LINUX distributions, all the useful stuff is already there). -- Bill Heiser: bill@bhhome.ci.net, heiser@world.std.com