From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar 15 18:47:00 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 064E8C12;
 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:47:00 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2237D3;
 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:46:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn17so838995wib.4
 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:46:57 -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=c74WaPpWKg5efyGbJFgXdLmQwxt65oxmXK+LS7qKiFs=;
 b=S6SkrL05fdZELIOYPVf/RHxFU1rM59KhSU15NJBRi/NjBWZ/mKlwjYflw6HtktP20O
 pDA/nxstnevHQX5ACCA4iB2A3llmxJ48ISouGsdq09amfKD8rqpV9h8P/27U0Tml+W+9
 XpUW+MstRYu4oisLrvuAR+cuzzPH6Jc974OCMUFvuLM/rpFZiQcRJx8QZO9iysGDW8pG
 oPhNw1+8ZdmIkRr87S18eyLc3iAHaBtP93Ympre7EeLdBTn2ClmMDKKqng15lBGDvQLH
 c4Ca0FNp1+qdjJxJxv83ZVd7IIRY1IkJ9KfqfxUWLf1Ch8/uKQTajqGXQkWW9KDwhxfz
 ZxXQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.94.135 with SMTP id dc7mr4984392wib.11.1363373217887;
 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.111.201 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5143643D.3040609@mu.org>
References: <514324E8.30209@freebsd.org> <201303150946.29100.jhb@freebsd.org>
 <51433D30.30405@freebsd.org> <51435271.2040402@mu.org>
 <CAJ-Vmo=4Cp07KNjNoFTJv8C6AcSVkGGKwPAeiLSia+mSh-uvqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5143643D.3040609@mu.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:46:57 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YK0e2KVYDZ9MG2Lj0_umwqi4NDU
Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=poGePTzhGorBVzxL7k_peOWAL5bvxaRO-Xc-4MOhk8Q@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 18:47:00 -0000

On 15 March 2013 11:11, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> wrote:

> People in my org have been working with NFS and reporting issues for the
> past year.  I'm quite certain that Doug White has reported issues due to
> missing certain caching features of the old code.
>
> This is not indicative that newNFS is bad, just that it still needs some
> work.

Good news. and yes, it needs more work, but it doesn't preclude it
from having a cutover date set. Even if that date is something far in
the future, like 11.0.

Or we'll just end up with two NFS stacks for some undetermined amount of time.

> Sure, and how much NFS do you actually use and support exactly?

.. and exactly how much would that lend to this discussion?

I'm not arguing NFS technical details, I'm arguing project forward
thinking and planning. These don't need me to be waist deep in NFS, it
needs a broader view of how things may and may not go.

I lived through the pain of Linux having multiple NFS implementations
for precisely this reason. It was a clusterfsck of a nightmare of epic
proportions. We should avoid that.



adrian