SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

February 2009

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:04:39 -0600
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Miles O'Neal <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject:
From:
Miles O'Neal <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-transfer-encoding:
7BIT
Comments:
To: "P. Larry Nelson" <[log in to unmask]> cc: [log in to unmask]
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
P. Larry Nelson said...

...
|I am currently going thru and adding "udp" to all the SL4.7 clients' fstab
|entries so they will use UDP rather than TCP.
|
|My main question is, lacking any explicit protocol designation in the fstab,
|how can one tell which protocol a client is using?

You can find the tcp connections using

   netstat -a | grep nfs

or just run

   cat /etc/mtab

to see each mount.

|And lastly, why wasn't the change documented in the release notes?
|
| 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.

We found things to be much more robust, and only very slightly
slower, using tcp.  We had plenty of hangs using udp, but that
was many kernel revs and other bugs back, so who knows?

-Miles

ATOM RSS1 RSS2