Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.development.system > #711

Re: NFS vs DFS

Show all headers | View raw

Hi
i think these are the big diffrences:
1.Implementation:
implementing NFS is much easier than DFS. for example in case of cache consistency DFS when a failure occurs during the time a client
process possesses a token. For example, if a client holding a file's token crashes or if a network partition occurs, the server is required to handle complex exception cases . Problems can also be caused when the first client comes back and has to resolve changes made to the file during its absences.

2.Availability
DFS provides more availability functionality than standard
NFS . This includes DFS support for read-write replication and dynamic client failover. In addition, DFS allows clients to dynamically failover to another
replicated server in case of server or network failures whereas the automounter-based replication capability in NFS allows client failover only at
mount time.

3. Geographically distribution
Both NFS and DFS contain important functionality for supporting file sharing across global environments. DFS and NFS are equivalent in TCP support and  client-side caching for high-performance and reliable file sharing across
WAN -based networks. DFS provides additional availability benefits for global environments. However,NFS provides a very high degree of availability for
WAN-based environments through deployment of Auspex's ServerGuard product. Finally, NFS is alone in supporting a high-performance file access protocol for Internet/Intranet.

Back to comp.os.linux.development.system | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Re: NFS vs DFS mohammad.mehdi.talebi@gmail.com - 2014-06-06 09:00 -0700

csiph-web