Re: BHYVE on NFSv4.2 filesystem?
Rick Macklem <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Jun 2026 08:49:40 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.hackers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAM5tNy4AO7JqXuKrWjR8ABVc4VhJR0ipicWbatA5w3BG2PXqxg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 3:39 PM Bakul Shah <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 18, 2026, at 2:26 PM, Dan Shelton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 at 01:21, Bakul Shah <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Feb 19, 2026, at 11:45 AM, Dan Shelton <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 at 22:45, Dan Shelton <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> Has anyone tried a BHYVE with a disk as file on a NFSv4.2 mount? > >> > >> Yes. [I tried this on a 15.0-RELEASE-p3 host, nfsv4.2 mounting > >> a filesystem from a 15.0-STABLE machine] > > > > How about the performance? Is it better than iSCSI? > > I don't know about iSCSI but comparing with p9fs: > > Test1: > dd bs=1m count=4000 > /dev/null < large-file > > nfsV3: > 32.3 > 46.3 > 51.3 > > nfsV4: > 129.1 > 59.9 > 48.8 > > p9fs: > 17.7 > 17.5 > 17.6 > > Test2: > find /usr/src/ > /dev/null > > nfsV3: > 60.0 > 39.0 > 30.9 > > nfsV4: > 54.0 > 17.9 > 35.8 > > p9fs: > 6.9 > 6.5 > 6.6 > > > So slower in all cases. In addition the variability in nfs numbers is concerning! > > p9fs doesn't cache but nfs does, so anything cached is served much faster. At this time it is only a hunch, but I think this might help.. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-uncacheable-files/ I plan on implementing this soon for FreeBSD. rick > > >