Tracy R Reed wrote:
James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
Is there widespread feeling that FreeBSD makes a better fileserver than
Linux?
Only among disaffected BSD users. I'm still waiting for one of these
guys who complain about Linux as a fileserver to come up with some real
bug reports so that the problems can be fixed. But I've used Linux to
serve up many terabytes of disk with NFS and Samba and always had good
results.
Raises hand--"Ooooo. Pick me."
So, does the Linux rpc.lockd actually validate NFS locks, finally?
For the longest time, the Linux rpc.lockd would silently allow all
locking and file activity on NFS. Of course, that works fine until you
actually do something like, oh, put your mail spool under NFS on Linux.
Or perhaps, put your Cadence EDA database under NFS and then expect
locking to prevent things from stomping on one another.
The FreeBSD folks, of course, didn't do much better. However, they at
least returned *FAIL* by default for locking requests instead of *PASS*.
This meant that FreeBSD NFS servers rejected locking requests, but
didn't silently corrupt your data.
This, in a nutshell, has been my continuing experience with Linux vs.
FreeBSD. FreeBSD fails noisily while Linux fails silently.
That's why I actually took the time to rewrite the FreeBSD rpc.lockd for
FreeBSD 5. I figured I could count on the fact that FreeBSD didn't have
any more silent bombshells waiting for me while I couldn't be so sure on
Linux (lazy malloc anyone?).
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
