From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: Is NFS v4 stable and recommend to use now? Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:15:40 -0400 Message-ID: <48E51DDC.7090503@redhat.com> References: <20081002171719.GA30408@fieldses.org> <20081002174129.GD6039@citi.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , "Roy M." , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Jim Rees Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:50261 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753671AbYJBTPq (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:15:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081002174129.GD6039@citi.umich.edu> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jim Rees wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Raw throughput should be the same. And I think the little benchmarking > I've seen has found that to be true. > > Actually v4 is better on fast nets because you can make the iosize bigger. > How is that? NFSv3 supports a 32 bit transfer size and runs over TCP, just the same as NFSv4. The benefits should come via the use of delegations to decrease some latencies. ps