cifs vs. nfs "chattiness"

[James Peach]

On 13/04/2007, at 3:25 PM, Steve French wrote:

> There is an oft-repeated comment that cifs is "chattier" than nfs  
> (e.g.
> http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/expert/KnowledgebaseAnswer/ 
> 0,289625,sid5_gci1113518,00.html)

Whatever "chatty" means. I can think of a few different interpretations.

> Any idea why such a perception?
>
> I assume it has to do with one or more of the following:
>
> 1) NFSv3 does not send open/close (which is a good news ... bad news
> story for nfs users of course - there is a good reason that NFSv4
> finally added an open call) while cifs does
>
> 2) Windows Explorer does lots of ineffecient repeated requests (which
> the MS cifs client dutifully send over the wire)
>
> 3) CIFS Unix Extensions require three to four operations for
> create/mkdir while NFS presumably can do it in one fewer).

4) browse traffic

--
James Peach | jpeach at samba.org