George Georgalis wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 05:21:57PM -0800, James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
SJS wrote:
begin quoting Bob La Quey as of Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 01:47:19PM -0800:
Maybe we should be looking harder at FreeBSD?
If you're going to run a fileserver -- especially if you're using NFS --
then you should be already, no?
Is there widespread feeling that FreeBSD makes a better fileserver than
Linux?
I wouldn't mind hearing any elaboration on this.
UFS, softupdates for disk integrity and faster feel on busy
systems. but if you're thinking about BSD, NetBSD is cleaner.
Define "cleaner". If you mean, "does less" then sure. NetBSD is cleaner.
FreeBSD tends to be tweaked for best BSD performance on x86.
NetBSD wants to be most portable but that sacrifices some performance.
OpenBSD shoots for most secure with little regard for either.
I think nfs was designed on BSD and just works better there,
not sure.
It works best on Solaris because it's from Sun.
It works better on FreeBSD because a few people there care very much
about *correct* filesystem semantics even if it hits performance.
Linux, of course, cared very little about correct filesystem semantics.
Thus, why everything is mounted async and why the rpc.lockd simply
returned "go ahead" any time NFS wanted a lock.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
