|
From: | Shehjar Tikoo |
Subject: | Re: [Gluster-devel] Multiple NFS Servers (Gluster NFS in 3.x, unfsd, knfsd, etc.) |
Date: | Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:44:29 +0530 |
User-agent: | Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) |
Gordan Bobic wrote:
Martin Fick wrote:--- On Wed, 1/6/10, Gordan Bobic <address@hidden> wrote:With native NFS there'll be no need to first mount aglusterFSFUSE based volume and then export it as NFS. The wayit has been developed is thatany glusterfs volume in the volfile can be exportedusing NFS by addingan NFS volume over it in the volfile. This issomething that will becomeclearer from the sample vol files when 3.0.1 comesout. It may be worth checking the performance of that solution vs the performance of the standalone unfsd unbound to portmap/mountd over mounted glfs volumes, as I discovered today that the performance feels very similar to native knfsd and server-side AFR, but without the fuse.ko complications of the former and the buggyness of the latter(e.g. see bug 186: http://bugs.gluster.com/cgi-bin/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=186- that bug has been driving me nuts since before 2.0.0 was released) I'd hate to see this be another wasted effort like booster when there is a solution that already works.
booster was not a wasted effort at all. It has received less attention over the last month or so because of the NFS xlator taking all my time, but before that it provided us and those who tested it for production systems, a short-term solution that performed better than unfsd-over-FUSE. I verified that there were clear performance benefits of using unfsd-booster.
I don't think it would be wasted if it includes NLM since unfsd does not do locking!
It does not do decent security either. One of our goals is to implement kerberos5 based authentication. We also want to support NFS over RDMA and NFSACLs. For extending to these, unfsd code is highly limiting.
Arguably it just replicated the functionality of server side volume assembly and exporting just the assembled volume.
Replication of existing functionality is not such a bad thing when you consider the extended functionality and performance goals we are aiming for with native NFS. We figured the benefits were worth the cost.
Whether the end client connects via nfs or glfs is largely immaterial for the sake of installing an additional package on the client. The bug mentioned above
No, it is not immaterial. The overhead of installing additional packages is a real concern in some of the deployments we're aiming for. It is not immaterial wrt how clients connect either. NFS is a well understood protocol. It gives us all the advantages of supporting a standardized protocol.
that shows up under that scenario, however, is probably a far more critical issue than what the client connection protocol is. I've said this before - stability should come before features, especially when features are replicating what can already be achieved with only superficial differences.
To rephrase what I said earlier, between unfsd-based approaches and native NFS, the difference will be far more than superficial. Thanks -Shehjar
Gordan _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list address@hidden http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |