Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:52:41 +0100 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
multipart/signed;
boundary=------------ms070608050409000305070201; micalg=sha1;
protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature" |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
P. Larry Nelson wrote:
> From what I've gleaned about the two protocols from googling, it appears
> that TCP has advantages on a lossy network but that's not our scenario.
> It also is not a stateless protocol, like UDP, so if a server crashes in
> the middle of a packet transmission, the client will hang and filesystems
> will need to be unmounted and remounted. So it would seem UDP is better,
> at least in our case.
See the famous Why NFS Sucks [1] paper, section 4, to see why you should
switch to TCP. In short, silent data corruption can happen pretty easily
with NFS over UDP.
Being able to kill processes waiting on a stuck NFS file handle has
nothing to do with TCP, but with "intr" mount option.
Cheers,
-jkt
[1] http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2007/cs4210_fall/papers/nfsOLS.pdf
|
|
|