From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Apr 24 12:24:35 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C044E2B2AA2 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:24:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [198.71.6.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497tdt0H4yz4GYL for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:24:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [198.71.6.79]) by mail2.nber.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 03OCOQ0W089481 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Apr 2020 08:24:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 08:24:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Aryeh Friedman cc: Arne Steinkamm , Ihor Antonov , "Steve O'Hara-Smith" , FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: Wayland on FreeBSD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <5058973.kMyvyFPq5o@amos> <20200423085443.18f00e9649e8c71867505550@sohara.org> <20200423113134.GB93186@trajan.stk.cx> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (BSF 287 2018-06-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-KLMS-Rule-ID: 1 X-KLMS-Message-Action: clean X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Status: not scanned, disabled by settings X-KLMS-AntiSpam-Interceptor-Info: not scanned X-KLMS-AntiPhishing: Clean, 1970/01/01 00:00:00 X-KLMS-AntiVirus: Kaspersky Security 8.0 for Linux Mail Server, version 8.0.1.721, bases: 2020/04/24 06:47:00 #10759063 X-KLMS-AntiVirus-Status: Clean, skipped X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 497tdt0H4yz4GYL X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of feenberg@nber.org designates 198.71.6.79 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=feenberg@nber.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.16 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[nber.org]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[79.6.71.198.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.4.2]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:26287, ipnet:198.71.6.0/23, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-3.66)[ip: (-9.61), ipnet: 198.71.6.0/23(-4.80), asn: 26287(-3.84), country: US(-0.05)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:24:35 -0000 On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > Looking around almost every major linux dist discourages NFS in favor of > almost anything else for example here is SUSE's official manual on network > storage (never even mentions NFS directly as a primary option, only how to > manage the ACL's if your on a legacy NFS system): > https://documentation.suse.com/sles/12-SP4/single-html/SLES-storage/#part-net-storage > Perhaps we have been in a rut with our petabyte of data entirely accessed over NFSv3, but looking at that web page I wonder if there isn't something obsolete about it - after all, the majority of the hardware mentioned in section 17.2 as being supported is IBM and SUN, and very little would be available for purchase today. I know it has an April 2020 data at the top, but still, it doesn't reflect our experience with Linux. All of our Linux systems have excellent support for NFS, and have for 30 years or more. I wonder if the documentation is perhaps greatly removed from actual practice. It is about remote block storage, NFS is about remote file storage. All our storage is FreeBSD, Freenas or Truenas. All our compute servers are Linux. Daniel Feenberg