[HN Gopher] Why NFS servers generally have a 'reply cache'
___________________________________________________________________
Why NFS servers generally have a 'reply cache'
Author : zdw
Score : 21 points
Date : 2021-04-10 02:10 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (utcc.utoronto.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (utcc.utoronto.ca)
| formerly_proven wrote:
| tl;dr because NFSv3 is a layer-violating mess of a protocol
| KaiserPro wrote:
| yeah but this is a hangover from v1 when UDP nfs was thought to
| be a good idea.
| notacoward wrote:
| It's a mess, but not because of layer violations. Contemporary
| file-access protocols were _far_ worse in that regard, as is
| ZFS in a different stack. I remember the XID-cache mess all too
| well from my younger days, but it 's not really a layering
| issue. It's exactly the kind of thing that a session layer is
| _supposed_ to do. That functionality can 't be kept in the
| transport layer in the case of clustered servers (which I was
| working on at the time). Please don't use "layer-violating"
| just because it sounds bad.
| voiper1 wrote:
| Why isn't it TCP instead of UDP to mitigate lost packet issues?
| blibble wrote:
| you can tell NFS to use TCP
| notacoward wrote:
| AFAIK you have to tell it to use UDP, because TCP has been
| the default in most implementations for a while. Even when I
| started with v2 in 1990(ish), the issues with NFS over UDP
| were already known.
| tyingq wrote:
| The rough history is that NFS originally only supported UDP,
| likely for resource reasons (tcp buffers, for example, are
| expensive when you have < 64Mb of RAM) and because it was
| mostly used on local LANS.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-11 23:01 UTC)