Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:24:32 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, rmacklem@uoguelph.ca Subject: Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0? Message-ID: <51433D30.30405@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201303150946.29100.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <514324E8.30209@freebsd.org> <201303150946.29100.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?
Would it make sense to make oldNFS more difficult to compile into the kernel
on HEAD to notify all those with legacy kernel config files?
--
Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51433D30.30405>