From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: Is NFS v4 stable and recommend to use now? Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 13:17:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20081002171719.GA30408@fieldses.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Roy M." Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:55223 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752689AbYJBRRV (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 13:17:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:49:50AM +0800, Roy M. wrote: > Hello, > > We are just using v3 for quite a long time, very stable, performance > are not bad but like many others, want to explore if possible to have > a better throughput. Raw throughput should be the same. And I think the little benchmarking I've seen has found that to be true. If you're just doing big I/O to a few files, that may be all you care about. If you're doing something more complicated then the situation isn't well understood yet. > Seems that are not many benchmark in the web about v4 vs v3 for > performance, etc. Anyone mind sharing some experience? What are the > real advantages in using v4? In theory: if you're doing file locking or reopening files a lot, then you may see a benefit from v4 delegations (which permit the client in some situations to do those operations without telling the server), and I do recall seeing some improvements e.g. with kernel compiles (which tend to reopen a small set of files frequently). --b.