Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:00:07 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com>, Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NFSv2 boot & OLD_NFSV2 Message-ID: <YTXPR01MB0189C2D8BBA6A8341F780E6DDD300@YTXPR01MB0189.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <D0AD43EB-DED1-4744-892D-D8C028A0FB83@me.com> 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>, <D0AD43EB-DED1-4744-892D-D8C028A0FB83@me.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just in case it wasn't clear, I think this is a good idea and I think you have a handle on any potential problems. Good luck with it, rick ________________________________________ From: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:04:59 AM To: Daniel Braniss Cc: Baptiste Daroussin; Rick Macklem; FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: NFSv2 boot & OLD_NFSV2 On 21. m=E4rts 2017, at 10:50, Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il<mailto:d= anny@cs.huji.ac.il>> wrote: On 21 Mar 2017, at 10:13, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org<mailto:bapt@= FreeBSD.org>> wrote: On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:58:21AM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote: On 20 Mar 2017, at 23:55, Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com<mailto:tsoome@me.com>= > wrote: On 20. m=E4rts 2017, at 23:53, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca<mailto:rm= acklem@uoguelph.ca>> wrote: Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 08:22:12PM +0200, Toomas Soome wrote: Hi! The current boot code is building NFSv3, with preprocessor conditional OLD_= NFSV2. Should NFSv2 code still be kept around or can we burn it? rgds, toomas I vote burn Bapt I would be happy to see NFSv2 go away. However, depending on how people con= figure their diskless root fs, they do end up using NFSv2 for their root fs. Does booting over NFSv3 affect this? 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). To be honest, I suspect few realize that they are using NFSv2 for their roo= t fs. (They'd see it in a packet trace or via "nfsstat -m", but otherwise they pr= obably think they are using NFSv3 for their root fs.) rick if they do not suspect, they most likely use v3 - due to simple fact that y= ou have to rebuild loader to use NFSv2 - it is compile time option. 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. danny 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 s= aid by Toomas that is it is already off by default in the 12.0 loader) am I mis= sing something? 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 wil= l only involve newer hosts, and simplifying the boot process is always a good idea. sorry for the noise. danny 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 wr= ites) - 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 pa= rallel option to use either NFS or TFTP (via dhcp option 150), with existin= g 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?YTXPR01MB0189C2D8BBA6A8341F780E6DDD300>