Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 27 May 2012 13:58:58 +0200
From:      Martin Birgmeier <Martin.Birgmeier@aon.at>
To:        Andrey Simonenko <simon@comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: kern/136865: [nfs] [patch] NFS exports atomic and on-the-fly atomic updates
Message-ID:  <4FC21702.6070005@aon.at>
In-Reply-To: <20120522080456.GA40365@pm513-1.comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>
References:  <201205200810.q4K8A4KP087730@freefall.freebsd.org> <20120522080456.GA40365@pm513-1.comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Andrey,

One more question: I am running 8.3, 9.0, and 7.4 on various machines. 
Do you have patches for these versions, too?

Regards,

Martin

On 05/22/12 10:04, Andrey Simonenko wrote:
> 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?4FC21702.6070005>