Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
Cc:        Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?
Message-ID:  <793530868.3962258.1363394273384.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5143643D.3040609@mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 3/15/13 10:55 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I have never in my entire career pushed for "breaking users in the
> interest of forward progress."
> 
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
You should get him to post w.r.t. his issues again. I must have missed
or forgotten what they were.

As far as I know, the client caching code is just a clone of what
the oldNFS client does, although it's possible that some differences
are there.

If he/you are referring to the DRC in the server, then, yes, I am
aware that work related to overheads/delays for TCP caching exists.

rick

> This is not indicative that newNFS is bad, just that it still needs
> some
> work.
> 
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> Sure, and how much NFS do you actually use and support exactly?
> 
> -Alfred
> _______________________________________________
> 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"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?793530868.3962258.1363394273384.JavaMail.root>