From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 16 00:38:01 2013 Return-Path: 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 4DAD7165; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:38:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A267F4; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:38:00 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEEACq+Q1GDaFvO/2dsb2JhbABDiDG8eoF9dIIqAQEBAwEBAQEgKyALBRYOCgICDRkCKQEJJgYIBwQBHASHbQYMsH2SXYEjgSqLCBB8NAeCLYETA5Qdgj6BH49jgyYgMoEFNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,854,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="21480082" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2013 20:37:53 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C8FB402B; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:37:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Alfred Perlstein Message-ID: <793530868.3962258.1363394273384.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <5143643D.3040609@mu.org> Subject: Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.203] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: Adrian Chadd , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann 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: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:38:01 -0000 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 3/15/13 10:55 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein 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"