From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44421) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dIaZC-00083R-Mm for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:00:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dIaZ8-0000JE-Ra for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:00:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:57847) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dIaZ8-0000J3-Oa for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:00:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dIaZ8-00014S-Do for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:00:02 -0400 Subject: bug#27097: Performance on NFS Resent-Message-ID: References: <20170527105641.9426-1-mail@cbaines.net> <20170527123113.1ca668e7@cbaines.net> <87tw424cap.fsf@gnu.org> <87fufhkw85.fsf@gnu.org> <871sr0ok2h.fsf@gnu.org> <8760gbh2th.fsf@gnu.org> <87efuym57c.fsf@gnu.org> <878tl4f4d4.fsf@elephly.net> <8760g856j8.fsf_-_@gnu.org> From: Ricardo Wurmus In-reply-to: <8760g856j8.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:59:22 +0200 Message-ID: <877f0oeyxh.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 27097@debbugs.gnu.org Ludovic Courtès writes: > I’m not sure if SMB is faster than NFS, is it? 9p (which Linux > supports) might work well. Sadly, our “storage appliances” only offer NFS or SMB (and maybe SCP). I’d gladly try *anything* to get away from our slow NFS. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net