From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 21:16:48 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18254106566C for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:16:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C808FC08 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 21:16:47 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmsFAN6/JU2DaFvO/2dsb2JhbACDd5IZjwKwKI1WgSGDN3QEhGc8hWY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,285,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="104514403" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-annu-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2011 16:16:46 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93A4B3FF3; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:16:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:16:46 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Message-ID: <2047622233.213674.1294348606324.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <201101060804.56205.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.200] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: perryh@pluto.rain.com, marek sal , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, milu@dat.pl, jyavenard@gmail.com Subject: Re: NFSv4 - how to set up at FreeBSD 8.1 ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:16:48 -0000 > > > > Not according to what I remember of the SunOS NFS documentation, > > which indicated that the driving force behind using UDP instead of > > TCP was to have the server be _completely_ stateless. (Of course > > locking is inherently stateful; they made it very clear that the > > locking protocol was considered to be an adjunct rather than part > > of the NFS protocol itself.) > When I said I recalled that they didn't do TCP because of excessive overhead, I forgot to mention that my recollection could be wrong. Also, I suspect you are correct w.r.t. the above statement. (ie. Sun's official position vs something I heard.) Anyhow, appologies if I gave the impression that I was correcting your statement. My intent was just to throw out another statement that I vaguely recalled someone an Sun stating. rick