Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:04:59 +0200 From: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> To: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NFSv2 boot & OLD_NFSV2 Message-ID: <D0AD43EB-DED1-4744-892D-D8C028A0FB83@me.com> In-Reply-To: <80C5425F-9A71-45D9-BA41-229E4E72EC36@cs.huji.ac.il> References: <38DD1950-AD12-4A27-8335-54F997E408DF@me.com> <20170320192000.6hal22ibnr3ajog3@ivaldir.net> <YTXPR01MB0189B266270E22DADF9A48EADD3A0@YTXPR01MB0189.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1B7471CD-2F2D-4F22-9D25-E46580CF9E96@me.com> <84D239AB-AB57-4A50-9700-E42BBF9CBE5A@cs.huji.ac.il> <20170321081339.2wbx3rb32qdavvn3@ivaldir.net> <80C5425F-9A71-45D9-BA41-229E4E72EC36@cs.huji.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 21. m=C3=A4rts 2017, at 10:50, Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> = wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 10:13, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org = <mailto:bapt@FreeBSD.org>> wrote: >>=20 >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:58:21AM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 20 Mar 2017, at 23:55, Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com = <mailto:tsoome@me.com>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 20. m=C3=A4rts 2017, at 23:53, Rick Macklem = <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca <mailto:rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 08:22:12PM +0200, Toomas Soome wrote: >>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The current boot code is building NFSv3, with preprocessor = conditional OLD_NFSV2. Should NFSv2 code still be kept around or can we = burn it? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> rgds, >>>>>>> toomas >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I vote burn >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Bapt >>>>> I would be happy to see NFSv2 go away. However, depending on how = people configure >>>>> their diskless root fs, they do end up using NFSv2 for their root = fs. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Does booting over NFSv3 affect this? >>>>>=20 >>>>> I think the answer is no for a FreeBSD server (since the NFSv2 = File Handle is the same as >>>>> the NFSv3 one, except padded with 0 bytes to 32bytes long). >>>>> However, there might be non-FreeBSD NFS servers where the NFSv2 = file handle is different >>>>> than the NFSv3 one and for that case, the user would need NFSv2 = boot code (or >>>>> reconfigure their root fs to use NFSv3). >>>>>=20 >>>>> To be honest, I suspect few realize that they are using NFSv2 for = their root fs. >>>>> (They'd see it in a packet trace or via "nfsstat -m", but = otherwise they probably >>>>> think they are using NFSv3 for their root fs.) >>>>>=20 >>>>> rick >>>>=20 >>>> if they do not suspect, they most likely use v3 - due to simple = fact that you have to rebuild loader to use NFSv2 - it is compile time = option. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> old systems, 8.x, still use/boot v2, and so do old linux. >>> NetApp has discontinued support for v2, so we had to move this = machines to use FreeBSD server and the day was >>> saved. So, till these machines get upgraded/discontinued we have a = problem. There are several solutions >>> to this issue, but as long as it's a matter of getting rid for the = sake of it, I would vote to keep it a while longer. >>>=20 >>> danny >>>=20 >>>=20 >> Given you are speaking of 8.x I suppose you are using the loader that = comes with >> it, meaning you are safe if we remove it from the loader in 12.0 = (note as said >> by Toomas that is it is already off by default in the 12.0 loader) am = I missing >> something? >>=20 >=20 > as usual, did not read the whole thread, I assumed - wrongly - that = support for v2 would be discontinued. > removing v2 support from the boot process is fine! great, go for it. = It will only involve newer > hosts, and simplifying the boot process is always a good idea. >=20 > sorry for the noise. > danny >=20 yes, just to clarify, the current loader code (in current), is having = NFS code implemented as: #ifdef OLD_NFSV2 v2 implementation is here #else v3 implementation is here #endif Which does mean that pxeboot/loader.efi is built by default to use v3 = only, but we do have 2 parallel implementations of the NFS readers. And = yes, the question is just about boot loader reader code (we do not = implement NFS writes) - and we are *not* talking about server side = there. Indeed it also is possible to merge those 2 version implementations, but = to be honest, I see very little point of doing that either, even if = there is some setup still with v2 only server, there is still an option = just to use TFTP based boot - especially given that current boot loader = does provide parallel option to use either NFS or TFTP (via dhcp option = 150), with existing binaries - that is, without having to re-compile. rgds, toomas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D0AD43EB-DED1-4744-892D-D8C028A0FB83>