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>