From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 17 01:07:42 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92DD9834 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74519D6F for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBH17gwe051646 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:07:42 GMT (envelope-from bdrewery@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from bdrewery@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id sBH17gGs051645 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:07:42 GMT (envelope-from bdrewery) Received: (qmail 23061 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2014 19:07:38 -0600 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.10.0.24?) (freebsd@shatow.net@10.10.0.24) by sweb.xzibition.com with ESMTPA; 16 Dec 2014 19:07:38 -0600 Message-ID: <5490D758.4020108@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:07:36 -0600 From: Bryan Drewery Organization: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Macklem Subject: Re: old NFS stripped out in a few days References: <1629848501.14187170.1418778250097.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <1629848501.14187170.1418778250097.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> OpenPGP: id=6E4697CF; url=http://www.shatow.net/bryan/bryan2.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NHCgnHkuOUJ0MwhHFeaWfDnI3TxkeC3jK" Cc: freebsd-current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:07:42 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --NHCgnHkuOUJ0MwhHFeaWfDnI3TxkeC3jK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/16/2014 7:04 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > Bryan Drewery wrote: >> On 12/16/2014 4:58 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: >>> FYI, I am planning on stripping the old NFS code out of head >>> on about Mon. Dec 22. This has been discussed before and most >>> seemed to be in favour of it. >>> >>> If you see a big problem with this, please email soon with >>> your concerns. >>> >>> rick >> >> Mind clarifying briefly the impact of this? Does the oldnfs code >> offer a >> single benefit over the current NFS code? >> > Well, I remember one person reporting that they still use the old > NFS server and that they had problems with the new one. >=20 > Unfortunately, these servers were used in production and they didn't > have time to update them or try and isolate what problem(s) they > experienced with the new server. No one else has reported problems > with the new code that they avoid with the old code. (One other > site has a lot of local patches for the old NFS server, but I > think they will just have to port those to the new server if/when > they want to upgrade to FreeBSD11.) Thanks. >=20 > Unless you use "-o" on nfsd to run the old server or do > "mount -t oldnfs ..." to use the old client, there shouldn't > be any impact, since you aren't using the old NFS client/server. >=20 > If you try and do "nfsd -o" after it is removed, nfsd replies that > the server isn't available and doesn't start. > For "mount -t oldnfs ...", it fails after the code is removed. >=20 > I, personally, don't care if it removed, but others have suggested > it (I suspect to reduce "code bloat" and the fact keeping it means > maintaining two NFS subsystems.) Yes, let's not rehash that. If it's been decided then let's stick to it. No sense having dual stacks if there's no benefits. >=20 > rick >=20 >> -- >> Regards, >> Bryan Drewery >> >> --=20 Regards, Bryan Drewery --NHCgnHkuOUJ0MwhHFeaWfDnI3TxkeC3jK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUkNdYAAoJEDXXcbtuRpfPPfwIAM4H0g8DfSevVfThaUiNyBlL UorRbMOPk4Z9ij6Sfx5maJwsaqMOuPEsDK1qgvKv4RMA00IkzHMtiqY7HVI5HaLI t7toew/mOQKM9DzYJQLlUaStYfqfgJ4lQlj1PdlrJ1r46N/ERnv3VxPs77ECRwnO +adTEIsDBURFo8y8RpncCke7WR4dc0woPwGspeO5hZ67BXa5rmjw86FuqLx+fijw vJR0B+lvwa6HvHFv9G9BLD8aShz2qpF2z/63jaak9jQdm1xPeVyLK4NMGkCcyuEw y6LLGS3XFjWF1GZze121h/8Dl/7FCmsVx4C4EQR8mgPIttZacP5GCQPtg76ERVk= =yB6i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NHCgnHkuOUJ0MwhHFeaWfDnI3TxkeC3jK--