Re: Is nfs reliable?

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:39:55 -0600 Tim Gorman wrote:
> UDP is an unreliable protocol, whereas TCP is reliable.

It should be pointed out that Tim is using the term "unreliable" in a technical sense here. The wikipedia article on reliability in computer networking isn't a bad introduction to the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_(computer_networking)

This does not mean at all that protocols layered on UDP "should not be relied on" which is what your friend suggested. It simply means it's up to the layered protocol to implement reliability. NFS does implement this.

Perhaps TCP is getting more common for NFS (I don't know), but it's also more common on database stacks to be connected via 10GB+ ethernet to an appliance that's sitting in the rack next to your server. NFS as a protocol has been around for a long time though and is useful on a lot of different architectures past and present... running on both TCP and UDP. So yes - UDP is an "unreliable" protocol in the technical sense of the term. But IMHO it's pretty incorrect and irresponsible to make a blanket statement that NFS "should not be relied on"... and slightly ignorant of history.

Choose technology that fits your needs, and NFS certainly remains one valid option in 2016.

-J

-- 
http://about.me/jeremy_schneider
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l