Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:20:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS version 4.0 for FreeBSD-CURRENT Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0903151702440.1646@muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20090315205229.GV55200@elvis.mu.org> References: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0903151520590.16993@muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca> <20090315205229.GV55200@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > I think it wise to look at 4.1 and scoping that out before taking > the time to integrate this to gain an understanding of: NFSv4.1 is still way out there. It hasn't reached RFC stage yet and vendors are only testing bits and pieces of it. (The current draft of the "minor" revision is over 500 pages.) All the code vendors are currently shipping is running 4.0. > > 1) what it would take to get to 4.1? A lot. A required feature is something for handling RPC transport called sessions. One guy has been looking at doing sessions for FreeBSD (hopefully integrated with Doug Rabson's new RPC code), but I have no idea if he has made any progress. > 2) how we would interoperate with other machines until we > get 4.1 (is everyone doing 4.0 or 4.1?). When will 4.1 become > the defacto standard (is it already?)? Systems should still support 4.0 for a long time. I have no idea when 4.1 will become a defacto standard, but I'd guess years. (For 4.0, the RFC is dated 2003 and the Linux implementation of 4.0 is still listed as experimental, I believe. 4.0 shipped with Solaris10, which was the first production quality implementation, imho. Apple only shipped an incomplete, non-usable 4.0 with Leopard. I think that gives you some idea how long it has taken to get from RFC to shipping. 4.1 is almost an RFC, but not quite yet.) > 3) trade-off between taking the 4.0 code or how we can > get 4.1 first before integration. This is important because > the bug reports on 4.0 can swamp someone and prevent new feature > development (4.1). > > You know more about it than most of us, so can you take some time > to look at 4.1 and give some guestimates so we can gauge what to > do next? > I've tried reading the drafts and got swamped. Honestly, I think a 4.1 implementation would take man years of effort and is beyond what I am capable of. Once you have sessions (non trivial, from what I saw), pNFS is what everyone gets excited about, but it's a major project. To do a server requires back end server<->server protocols that aren't spelled out by the draft. A client side of pNFS needs to know how to handle the various layout schemes (there are 2 other drafts beyond the 500+ page document for 2 other schemes than the most basic whole file one). > Again, this is really cool and I apologize if 4.1 is something far > out on the horizon, I just am approaching this from an integration > perspective, not as an authority on NFSv4 standardization process. > > If the case is 4.1 is some number of years out, then I think my > answer is "let's get this in ASAP!", otherwise we should think > about it. > Yes, I think 4.1 is some years away. rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.63.0903151702440.1646>