eeandrew@cybaswan.UUCP (e c andrews) (08/09/90)
In article <797@hades.ausonics.oz.au> greyham@hades.ausonics.oz.au (Greyham Stoney) writes: >We are having SEVERE problems with our machine crashing and hanging several >times a day running host based TCP/IP 1.1.1 and NFS 2.0 under 386/ix 2.0.2. > >We get the "NFS server not responding" message very frequently; sometimes it This is normal if the server is busy,.... But if you try 'netstat 1' on the server + get an error message every line, it's because your nfs has died again so either reset it (init 2,sleep 60,init 3) which sometimes works, or reboot. Eventually I knocked up a script to check the NFS every 30 secs and reset it automatically if it was dead. We were still rebooting once in a while anyway because it sometimes panics the machine. Yes, the NFS is a load of crap. The new version of NFS (that comes with ISC 2.2) improves life (even with ISC2.0.2), but it still has a tendancy to die every hour or so if you're using it heavily (Beats the 5 minutes of life we had before though). I think the only way to get any use out of the NFS is to manually ensure that you don't have more than 1 or 2 'serious' jobs trying to use it at once. Dropping a core on an NFS'ed disk zaps the server every time. I'm amazed that nobody seems to have noticed how pathetic the NFS is. I suppose people tend to just NFS executables, home directories, etc and not actually USE the nfs. How can Interactive get away with selling this? Eddy Andrews-: eeandrew@.pyr.swan.ac.uk UUCP: ..!ukc!cybaswan.UUCP!eeandrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the begining there was nothing, then there was me. Let there be light." - The Bomb, from Dark Star. (better with the funny voice)
tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de (Thomas Hoberg) (08/14/90)
Well, this wasn't really intended as a follow up, but I don't know how
to just post an article... :-{
The flames I just read about ISC's NFS implementation have me wounder
why I should use NFS at all. I am waiting for Hauppauge's 4860 board
(i486 + i860) to arrive any day now, that I want to hook up to the
386 Compaq we are using just now via Ethernet. All we need is some
kind of networking not necessarily NFS. Isn't there a thing called
RFS (AT&T's Remote File System) included with ISC? Shouldn't it
actually perform a lot faster than the state-less design of NFS?
Is anybody actually using it on an [34]86 box with 386/ix?
What are the trade-offs? Can I run it together with TCP/IP or is
it actually based on it. Can I do rlogins, telnet and FTP?
Any suggestions welcome!paul@dialogic.com (The Imaginative Moron aka Joey Pheromone) (08/15/90)
In article <279@prosun.first.gmd.de> tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de (Thomas Hoberg) writes: >RFS (AT&T's Remote File System) included with ISC? Shouldn't it >actually perform a lot faster than the state-less design of NFS? > >Any suggestions welcome! Yes,there is RFS. We run ISC 2.0.2 and a whole network of 386's using RFS. It works fine with host-based and Interlan NP600 based TCP/IP. It does give true unix file semantics. It doesn't crash. There are some problems with advertising resources from a host-based TCP machine but our server uses the interlan NP600 and drivers, so it's OK. It's not perfect, but you can get real work out of it - we have all GNU emacs stuff on a advertised FS, with only the binary locally. It works great. There's only one problem. ISC have stopped supplying it. Starting with the 2.2 release. Yes, that's it. Gone. Zilch. Moribund. Instead, we are left with that wonderous piece of software known as ISC NFS .... You can imagine how pleased we are :-) (VERY heavy :-) -- Paul Bennett | | "I give in, to sin, because Dialogic Corp. | paul@dialogic.com | You have to make this life 300 Littleton Road | ..!uunet!dialogic!paul | livable" Parsippany, NJ 07054 | | Martin Gore
als@bohra.cpg.oz (Anthony Shipman) (08/15/90)
In article <279@prosun.first.gmd.de>, tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de (Thomas Hoberg) writes: > kind of networking not necessarily NFS. Isn't there a thing called > RFS (AT&T's Remote File System) included with ISC? Shouldn't it > actually perform a lot faster than the state-less design of NFS? > Is anybody actually using it on an [34]86 box with 386/ix? > What are the trade-offs? Can I run it together with TCP/IP or is > it actually based on it. Can I do rlogins, telnet and FTP? I have used RFS on 386/ix 2.0.2 and it seemed to be quite reliable. It requires STREAMS and you can run it alongside TCP/IP. The big advantage for me over NFS for homogeneous SysV networks was remote device access. You can mount another machine's /dev directory and access it's devices directly. RFS however can only be used between machines running SysV. I have never used NFS with 386/ix so I can't compare the performance. -- Anthony Shipman ACSnet: als@bohra.cpg.oz.au Computer Power Group 9th Flr, 616 St. Kilda Rd., St. Kilda, Melbourne, Australia D