Home -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Is nfs reliable?

Re: Is nfs reliable?

From: Michael Cunningham <napacunningham_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:53:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPt39tv7mKS4unqu0ND+1BxaQiX5rX1CigjRPKJSCXA6rO-uxg_at_mail.gmail.com> 








Thank you Tim,



I have used nfs for storage since at least 2000 and always found it the
easiest to configure. With 10g ethernet we got awesome performance.



Since I have never had a problem with nfs I just had to ask Oracle-L if
anyone had ever heard of nfs being unreliable.



Michael



On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:39 AM, Tim Gorman <tim_at_evdbt.com> wrote:



> UDP is an unreliable protocol, whereas TCP is reliable.  Initially, the

> default protocol for NFS was UDP.  Since NFSv3, TCP has been an option and

> is now the default with NFSv4.

>

> NFS over TCP is as reliable as locally-attached storage or SAN storage.

>

>

>

>

>

> On 6/2/16 23:02, Michael Cunningham wrote:

>

> I had someone tell me today that nfs should not be relied on and it should

> not be used for a shared mount that needed to be reliably available.

>

> Has anyone ever hear this before?

>

> --

> Michael Cunningham

>

>

>




-- 
Michael Cunningham

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


Received on Fri Jun 03 2016 - 16:53:03 CEST












Original text of this message