From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar 15 17:55:06 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C543C45;
 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:55:06 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CAD1C7;
 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:55:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hi8so793469wib.1
 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
 :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=nOR9Incd0z1X+JOBTntv2yQsK/H9gmZfshZbzezx9DE=;
 b=tOlmysuKXQKgoa7uuDKwHfIt9V7Aean8zdf5Ude5Fc/oE2Y+jPsWyo8/shrHp0v+k/
 nl3AjE2s+bs7h0Vlv2uKgTV8g+fZ2/6hGBz0tnuaxmidkBDtwFYVs4tgFUW7thg3Ix+s
 Mgo9XfhRZPafVwVdhyx5XAyNLbsDcYfmhSJ4IlOnu1IKeO2Z0E/31CiaOOOnXYWur3QF
 64pNdQC0oMozhoD9h/zW8RY/HplB4QUOTDtM3gi7ySMNfht7OUFhpVvLBbftqZmMUOYq
 I3znDevzsT+55oX7VBj93tV8rG+uY0Ps/yU0LqqvzBQqmJmPQj3+L8Y5xRD2IiWdG8HI
 47EQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.97.233 with SMTP id ed9mr4647778wib.32.1363370104736;
 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.111.201 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51435271.2040402@mu.org>
References: <514324E8.30209@freebsd.org> <201303150946.29100.jhb@freebsd.org>
 <51433D30.30405@freebsd.org> <51435271.2040402@mu.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:55:04 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 58XniyE5nNCqt5B5gZOe9hNT4yc
Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=4Cp07KNjNoFTJv8C6AcSVkGGKwPAeiLSia+mSh-uvqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: rmacklem@uoguelph.ca, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>,
 freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:55:06 -0000

On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> wrote:

> Finally, I think it is really premature to declare a sunset for the oldnfs
> until the users are gushing with approval over the new system.

The flipside to this argument (and coming from you is kind of amusing
:-) is that without any kind of sunset time stated, companies won't
push back or be forced to migrate, so they may stick with oldnfs for
years to come.

It sounds like your employer has made that choice, at least for the
short term. Nothing in your email stated that you had filed bugs (but
I'm sure you have), nor that you were dedicating any resources to help
Rick and others iron out the bugs in NFSv4.

So I'm all for sunsetting oldnfs by 10.x, and lighting a fire up
peoples' asses to realise that stuff _needs_ to get debugged before
10.0 is cut, or they're going to be in for an even rougher ride in the
future.



adrian