Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:04:56 +0300 From: Andrey Simonenko <simon@comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> To: Martin Birgmeier <Martin.Birgmeier@aon.at> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/136865: [nfs] [patch] NFS exports atomic and on-the-fly atomic updates Message-ID: <20120522080456.GA40365@pm513-1.comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <201205200810.q4K8A4KP087730@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <201205200810.q4K8A4KP087730@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:10:04AM +0000, Martin Birgmeier wrote: > The following reply was made to PR kern/136865; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Martin Birgmeier <Martin.Birgmeier@aon.at> > To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, simon@comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua > Cc: > Subject: Re: kern/136865: [nfs] [patch] NFS exports atomic and on-the-fly > atomic updates > Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:04:01 +0200 > > Dear Andrey, > > It seems that you have done some great work here, and I would really > like to see this integrated into the core FreeBSD distribution (I was > the submitter of http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/131342). > > I would like to try out your patches and have two questions: > > - Do your patches support multiple zfs sharenfs specifications as > proposed in http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=147881 (I am > using this)? The exports(5) manual page says that address specifications must be specified after options. The nfs.exports(5) file format allows to use options after address specifications, so they can overwrite previously specified options. It is possible to specify all settings for one file system in one line, no ';' like separators are required. For example line: /fs -ro -sec krb5 1.1.1.1 -nfsv4 no -rw 2.2.2.2 -sec sys -nfsv4 yes 3.3.3.3 will be translated to ("nfse -t ..." output): Pathname /fs Export specifications: -rw -sec sys -maproot=-2:-2 -host 3.3.3.3 -rw -sec krb5 -maproot=-2:-2 -nfsv4 no -host 2.2.2.2 -ro -sec krb5 -maproot=-2:-2 -host 1.1.1.1 > > - Could you give a concise list of incompatibilities (and even > regressions if they should exist at all) of your solution compared to > the standard one? - As to the advantages, I am already convinced. :-) In short: if nfse is run in compatible mode with mountd ("nfse -C ..."), then it is more compatible with exports(5) than mountd is. If one did not follow rules of exports(5), then "nfse -C ..." can be incompatible with mountd. If nfse is run in native nfs.export(5) configuration file format mode, then logic of configuration looks like exports(5), but differs in some places. So, when we speak about "incompatibilities" then it is necessary to distinguish incompatibilities of "nfse native mode" vs mountd and incompatibilities of "nfse compatible mode" vs mountd. I suggest to check whether "nfse -C ..." is compatible with mountd using instructions described here: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2010-May/008421.html You do not need to install anything or modify existent system for testing. Can you try "nfse -Ct ..." and tell me whether "nfse -C ..." is compatible enough with mountd (try correct configurations and configurations with mistakes). I have list of difference somewhere, I'll try to find it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120522080456.GA40365>