Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:07:36 -0600 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: old NFS stripped out in a few days Message-ID: <5490D758.4020108@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1629848501.14187170.1418778250097.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <1629848501.14187170.1418778250097.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --NHCgnHkuOUJ0MwhHFeaWfDnI3TxkeC3jK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/16/2014 7:04 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > Bryan Drewery wrote: >> On 12/16/2014 4:58 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: >>> FYI, I am planning on stripping the old NFS code out of head >>> on about Mon. Dec 22. This has been discussed before and most >>> seemed to be in favour of it. >>> >>> If you see a big problem with this, please email soon with >>> your concerns. >>> >>> rick >> >> Mind clarifying briefly the impact of this? Does the oldnfs code >> offer a >> single benefit over the current NFS code? >> > Well, I remember one person reporting that they still use the old > NFS server and that they had problems with the new one. >=20 > Unfortunately, these servers were used in production and they didn't > have time to update them or try and isolate what problem(s) they > experienced with the new server. No one else has reported problems > with the new code that they avoid with the old code. (One other > site has a lot of local patches for the old NFS server, but I > think they will just have to port those to the new server if/when > they want to upgrade to FreeBSD11.) Thanks. >=20 > Unless you use "-o" on nfsd to run the old server or do > "mount -t oldnfs ..." to use the old client, there shouldn't > be any impact, since you aren't using the old NFS client/server. >=20 > If you try and do "nfsd -o" after it is removed, nfsd replies that > the server isn't available and doesn't start. > For "mount -t oldnfs ...", it fails after the code is removed. >=20 > I, personally, don't care if it removed, but others have suggested > it (I suspect to reduce "code bloat" and the fact keeping it means > maintaining two NFS subsystems.) Yes, let's not rehash that. If it's been decided then let's stick to it. No sense having dual stacks if there's no benefits. >=20 > rick >=20 >> -- >> Regards, >> Bryan Drewery >> >> --=20 Regards, Bryan Drewery --NHCgnHkuOUJ0MwhHFeaWfDnI3TxkeC3jK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUkNdYAAoJEDXXcbtuRpfPPfwIAM4H0g8DfSevVfThaUiNyBlL UorRbMOPk4Z9ij6Sfx5maJwsaqMOuPEsDK1qgvKv4RMA00IkzHMtiqY7HVI5HaLI t7toew/mOQKM9DzYJQLlUaStYfqfgJ4lQlj1PdlrJ1r46N/ERnv3VxPs77ECRwnO +adTEIsDBURFo8y8RpncCke7WR4dc0woPwGspeO5hZ67BXa5rmjw86FuqLx+fijw vJR0B+lvwa6HvHFv9G9BLD8aShz2qpF2z/63jaak9jQdm1xPeVyLK4NMGkCcyuEw y6LLGS3XFjWF1GZze121h/8Dl/7FCmsVx4C4EQR8mgPIttZacP5GCQPtg76ERVk= =yB6i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NHCgnHkuOUJ0MwhHFeaWfDnI3TxkeC3jK--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5490D758.4020108>