From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 27 10:41:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3197D37B404 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:41:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.outpostsentinel.com (66-23-198-138.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.198.138]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DC843FBF for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:41:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cfowler@outpostsentinel.com) Received: from [192.168.2.8] (skylab.outpostsentinel.com [127.0.0.1]) by www.outpostsentinel.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RIeb120666; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:40:38 -0500 From: Christopher Fowler To: Steve Sizemore In-Reply-To: <20030327172404.GE64316@math.berkeley.edu> References: <200303260034.aa92057@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> <20030326035938.GF1713@dan.emsphone.com> <3E816243.AED1CB4F@mindspring.com> <20030327070317.GA19434@math.berkeley.edu> <3E82B1B8.65D4375B@mindspring.com> <20030327172404.GE64316@math.berkeley.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 27 Mar 2003 13:41:35 -0500 Message-Id: <1048790495.9275.19.camel@cfowler.outpostsentinel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-33.0 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, QUOTE_TWICE_1,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_XIMIAN autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Re: NFS -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:41:48 -0000 On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 12:24, Steve Sizemore wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:09:28AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Steve Sizemore wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:18:11AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > In fact, the only legitimate argument I have ever heard for UDP > > > > has been "I have an old Linux install that can't talk TCP, as > > > > only UDP was implemented at the time I installed it". > > > > > > Have you already forgotten the locking problem that you were > > > helping me with last week? The only solution was to use UDP. > > > > Working around a screwed up implementation is not a "legitimate" > > argument. The only legitimate argument to that is "unscrewing" > > the implementation. > > > > 8-). > > I agree with that to a degree - at least from the perspective of a > developer. (If I had the knowledge and time to unscrew the > implementation, I would certainly try.) However, for those who are > primarily sysadmins and FreeBSD advocates, using UDP is a legitimate > alternative to switching to linux. I do not think switching to Linux will fix that TCP Vs UDP issue. I'm in need of an NFS TCP server. Well, at version 2.4.18, I still do not have it. I have a need to run tCP for NFS and not use UDP. For now, FreeBSD will be serving me up NFS shares. > > Steve > -- > Steve Sizemore , (510) 642-8570 > Unix System Manager > Dept. of Mathematics and College of Letters and Science > University of California, Berkeley > _______________________________________________ > 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"