Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 14:44:49 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Daniel Ebdrup Jensen <debdrup@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: RFC: changing the default NFSv4 minor version? Message-ID: <YQXPR0101MB0968C3D984D44CD492C28818DD509@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <20210514082538.wbbrhhkwebvos6qc@nerd-thinkpad.local> References: <YQXPR0101MB096876462C2D45CB123431BCDD519 () YQXPR0101MB0968 ! CANPRD01 ! PROD ! OUTLOOK ! COM>,<20210514082538.wbbrhhkwebvos6qc@nerd-thinkpad.local>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Daniel Ebdrup Jensen wrote: >On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 11:02:35PM +0000, Rick Macklem wrote: >>Hi, >> >>I believe that NFSv4.1 and NFSv4.2 are now mature in freebsd-current/main. >>I also believe that NFSv4.1/4.2 is a better protocol than NFSv4.0. >>(In particular, the sessions mechanism for "exactly once RPC semantics" >> is a significant improvement over the duplicate request cache for NFSv4.0, >> plus other improvements.) >> >>Right now, the FreeBSD NFSv4 client will use NFSv4.0 unless the >>"minorversion" mount option is used to set the minor version to 1 or 2. >> >>The Linux client uses the highest minor version supported by both >>client and server by default. >>I'd like to propose that the default behaviour of the FreeBSD client >>be changed to do the same, so that NFSv4.1/4.2 will be used when possible. >>--> The "minorversion" mount option could still be used to override the >> above default. >> >>I have hesitated doing this change because it could be considered a POLA >>violation, but I think the change from 4.0->4.1/4.2 will normally be a >>neutral to positive experience. (To be honest, I suspect most won't notice >>the change.) >> >>How do others feel about this change? >> >>rick >>_______________________________________________ >>freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >>https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org > >Hi Rick, > > If I understand your plans correctly, you're not going to be making > it so that minorversion=N complains? If by "complains" you mean "mount fails if the minor version is not supported by the server" then, yes, I am not planning on changing that. > In that case, I don't quite understand how it can be a POLA > violation, since presumably it'll fall back to NFSv4.0 if that's > the only thing that's supported by ntpd on some other system. The POLA violation is that, now, a mount without "minorversion" always uses NFSv4.0 and fails to mount if the server does not support NFSv4.0. > At any rate, I'm all for it since I'm already using NFSv4.2. :) Thanks for the input, rick Yours, Daniel Ebdrup Jensenhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YQXPR0101MB0968C3D984D44CD492C28818DD509>