From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 15 18:56:44 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E98A1B9; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:56:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qe0-f50.google.com (mail-qe0-f50.google.com [209.85.128.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E0D872; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qe0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k5so2154085qej.9 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:56:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tirRrKY4a8xbUfIvAalfMJAWQWauoOqoY2kMziychjU=; b=K1GNvecT3QsgA4m7d5cIDLLkbahoWWKF0CPYvXdtno/BUyfnV/Vv9lrf/WTXLGpDZC 230oiIdB0BW34gZgcnzhSYActxTj1cxOrfa4aM3dUlAHpvs29BeDHGvrvFc0pQ/OXZOT ipR3Aw9i7jO5dYESY0WGIatqH1Jh8dFt+8pe9BuZzjLnQXy6iKBhfnZ/r/iNoFFeZ27d ZxS753y135epY0po37yCXDSFkc0AkmLN5iX13n7fOO6N0vWHO5bpAeBCq0FlM0k0WpQT CFg5Ik143YJoE5Z8W2eDBeIz96KXApQ8ApyNeCq3uWTsTfoAGnM0R+ricaieIJkfEVmO tPfQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.58.173 with SMTP id s13mr7913637qeq.29.1363373797007; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.50.67 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:56:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <514324E8.30209@freebsd.org> <201303150946.29100.jhb@freebsd.org> <51433D30.30405@freebsd.org> <51435271.2040402@mu.org> <5143643D.3040609@mu.org> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:56:36 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0? From: Freddie Cash To: Adrian Chadd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Andre Oppermann , Rick Macklem , FreeBSD-Current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:56:44 -0000 Isn't the general process (or at least past pattern) to: - have 1 release cycle with just the old code (aka 8.x with oldNFS) - have 1 release cycle with old and new code, default to old (aka 9.x with oldNFS + newNFS) - have 1 release cycle with old and new code, default to new (aka 10.x with newNFS) - remove the old code from next release (aka 11.0) Or is that too long of a time-frame to migrate from old to new? On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 15 March 2013 11:11, Alfred Perlstein 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 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com