Re: nfs is stupid ("getfh failed")

From: Neil Brown (neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 01:55:22 EST


On Friday September 7, rothwell@holly-springs.nc.us wrote:
>
> Just wondering if there's been any talk, plans, etc. of an alternative for
> NFS.
>
> > What exactly do you mean by "better" anyway?
>
> Better security, better performance.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -M

NFSv2 and 3 do allow better security, but it isn't often implemented.
I am working on putting some infrastructure in place so that
crypto-authentication can be added to nfsd in a nice modular way.
Ofcourse the client will need to speak the same authentication
protocol too.

Then there is NFSv4 which might improve performance in some
circumstances, though it could do more....

SUNs "cachefs" concept can be used to improve read performance by
caching a lot more of server-data on the client. That could be
implemented for Linux, but I don't know of anyone with serious plans.

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 15 2001 - 21:00:24 EST