From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 16 00:44:47 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 0FF8F452 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:44:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2BD83D for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id gf12so1652854vcb.24 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:44:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wemm.org; s=google; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xSS/FkVrLlVNBPuO7uqXJBAWxIRM0DJIMqMEP5uR7R4=; b=Xr7CvhvA0VWDnolEIoV2O7bJ3m8akxngSGHQ/7d6M9sFJKUhAP2Y1AKlMinWwtvn4K 4cnI2wXBpnPXCWFx51tZGtJ1UyJeyE8jUvYR3DWE+FoevirifJuc4+aYI8jx2z+83xLf 0/ao0c0eiFcHGQX0ASa+GJC3+8+orgJRuK6b4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=xSS/FkVrLlVNBPuO7uqXJBAWxIRM0DJIMqMEP5uR7R4=; b=KDvQin4pqPyMrigtjDb6o2JB/WcIRaKUhnd2Z/yFHQbYt5CAxhZB0tiQKFWQWEJDP2 uT6x+1XaOEuFyZ+qTN/hU6qCVwvELvX5M6smJqJ50ebWkhaLPXWgYxWMURYgxll8JE8+ ue7iL0If1gi9T43bVUCAV96HlxsYp4LbqRCWIOk1Lmk0bYehaksJZhJ3g8o+noaDgZ7S w0uDrJBKjTq12c70OfTTrbD1Bxq9WKQ97FEZeMT7oJ7DZstc8Gr8IqW3cOxCyUKcdXJx n0B/G7+2+QJnluRYuHvDh5E2nu99CJPYBwOZfixKgnfKMDCGQcJwYARxOKGtO63pWQjy uyig== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.24.205 with SMTP id w13mr8230912vdf.61.1363394680681; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.221.11.72 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:44:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201303151703.09688.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <514324E8.30209@freebsd.org> <201303150946.29100.jhb@freebsd.org> <51433D30.30405@freebsd.org> <201303151703.09688.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:44:40 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0? From: Peter Wemm To: John Baldwin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmAzEC20ibr6OKZlpPN8ExH5XnDR+aCurOgWOtRW1fht1E8Id+rdSWydejZ6G2D+GTfV0Av Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann , rmacklem@uoguelph.ca 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 00:44:47 -0000 On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote: >> On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote: >> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote: >> >> Hi Rick, all, >> >> >> >> is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0, >> >> or to keep both around indefinately? >> >> >> >> I'm talking about: >> >> oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3 >> >> newNFS in sys/fs/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3+NFSv4 >> >> >> >> NewNFS supports newer NFS standards and seems to have proven itself in >> >> some quite heavy traffic environments. >> >> >> >> Is there any reason to keep oldNFS around other than nostalgic? >> > >> > It can probably be removed. It's kind of handy to keep around as long as 8.x >> > is around since it uses oldNFS by default as it makes merging bugfixes to the >> > NFS client a bit easier (you fix both clients in HEAD and can then just svn >> > merge both of those to 8 and 9). Having several fixes to the NFS client >> > recently and being in a position of still using 8.x with oldNFS in production, >> > I would prefer to not remove it quite yet. >> >> Do you have a timeframe on the sunset of oldNFS in HEAD so we can communicate >> a) that oldNFS won't be in 10.0; and b) it will go on date X? > > I thought I implied one above: when 8.x is EOL'd. However, that has more to do > with developer convience. It's actually a PITA to use the old NFS client even > on 9.0. Yes to both. As somebody who uses oldNFS in production in 9.x, I can vouch for that. Personally I'd like to see oldnfs go away from head after a comfortable dust-settling period 8.4-R and then call it a day. Although, please, as part of this please hunt down and s/newnfs/nfs/g in the process. This should be done well before 10.x so loose ends can be tracked down and fixed. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV bitcoin:188ZjyYLFJiEheQZw4UtU27e2FMLmuRBUE