From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: NFS performance (Currently 2.6.20) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0500 Message-ID: <1202311096.12647.28.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <3093.195.41.66.226.1202292274.squirrel@mail.jabbernet.dk> <47A9C620.70106@oxeva.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Jesper Krogh , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Gabriel Barazer Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:58104 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751665AbYBFPSY (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:18:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47A9C620.70106-KSe8qvLY914@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 15:37 +0100, Gabriel Barazer wrote: > > > > Should I go for NFSv2 (default if I dont change mount options) NFSv3 ? or > > NFSv4 > > NFSv2/3 have nearly the same performance Only if you shoot yourself in the foot by setting the 'async' flag in /etc/exports. Don't do that... Most people will want to use NFSv3 for performance reasons. Unlike NFSv2 with 'async', NFSv3 with the 'sync' export flag set actually does _safe_ server-side caching of writes. Trond