The magic of ZFS and NFS (2nd try)

[Rick Macklem]

I wrote:
> Rainer Duffner wrote:
> > 
> > > Am 21.02.2015 um 19:23 schrieb Jordan Hubbard
> > > <jkh at ixsystems.com>:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> On Feb 21, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Christian Baer
> > >> <christian.baer at uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> But why shouldn't I use /etc/exports? I have read people writing
> > >> this (don't
> > >> use /etc/exports) in forums when searching for answers, however
> > >> the current
> > >> manpage for zfs says this:
> > > 
> > > FreeNAS has more experience with sharing things from ZFS than
> > > anyone else in the BSD community (that’s not hyperbole, it’s
> > > simply fact).  We don’t use any of the zfs sharing flags.  Those
> > > were intended more for Solaris (sharesmb, for example - FreeBSD
> > > lets you do that, but what does it *mean* when you don’t have a
> > > native CIFS service?).   FreeBSD has never integrated ZFS’s
> > > notion
> > > of sharing or, for that matter, a number of other things like
> > > drive hot sparing and automatic replacement, and you’re seeing
> > > the
> > > results of ZFS’s solaris roots still not lining up 100% with
> > > their
> > > new FreeBSD home.  That’s all.
> > > 
> > > I would simplify things, just as FreeNAS has (for good reasons),
> > > and simply have ZFS be “a filesystem” from FreeBSD’s perspective
> > > and share it just as you would UFS.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Interesting.
> > 
> > I admit I don’t use NFS v4.
> > Is it much faster than NFS v3 these days?
> > 
> Nope. If you are lucky, you'll be about performance neutral when
> switching from v3 -> v4. If you access lots of files, you probably
> won't be performance neutral, due to the extra overhead of Opens,
> etc.
> 
> NFSv4 isn't really a replacement for NFSv3 imho. It fills a
> different,
> although somewhat overlapping solution space. It provides better byte
> range locking, ACLs and, when pNFS becomes commonly available, better
> scalability for I/O performance on relatively large servers
> (especially
> if the clients are accessing a fairly small number of large files).
> If you don't need any of the above, you don't need/want NFSv4, again
> imho.
> 
Oh, and NFSv4 allows clients to cross server mount point boundaries.
Some will find this a useful feature, others a hassle.

> Sorry to wander off topic, but Rainer did ask;-) rick
> 
> > But I’ve always added the line from exports(5) into the sharenfs
> > property like
> > 
> > zfs get sharenfs datapool/nfs/ds3-documents
> > NAME                        PROPERTY  VALUE
> >                                                       SOURCE
> > datapool/nfs/ds3-documents  sharenfs   -maproot=1003 -network
> > 10.10.10.0 -mask 255.255.255.0  inherited from datapool/nfs
> > 
> > These lines get written into /etc/zfs/exports
> > 
> > I like it that way because if a filesystem is destroyed, I don’t
> > have
> > to remember removing it from /etc/exports.
> > 
> > I also admit I’m heavily influenced by Solaris on this particular
> > setting…
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-fs at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-fs at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"