On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Peter =C5strand wrote:
>=20
> [About v4]
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>=20
> > > > I really wish the entire wire protocol were scrapped and replac=
ed with
> > > > something more sane, and easier to parse.=20
> > > You had me worried there for a moment, I thought you might be the=
first
> > > person to admit to liking the NFS4 protocol design.
>=20
> Couldn't agree more.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > In my personal opinion, version 4 of NFS is a quantum-leap improvem=
ent over
> > previous versions. While I used NFS v3 extensively, I always felt =
it was a
> > crappy protocol, and unworthy of serious development effort. That c=
hanged with
> > v4.
> ...
> > > > It's tempting to see what would arise from a clean-slate wire p=
rotocol
> > > > effort, something that is otherwise compatible with NFS 4.x ope=
rations,
> > > > objects, and data model.
> >=20
> > It's more like v4 is a vast relative improvement over prior NFS. G=
iven the
> > huge number of NFS users and sites, IMO v4 is a huge improvement fo=
r Unix file
> > sharing overall.
>=20
> Many years ago, before NFSv4 was finished, I felt the same. I was wai=
ting=20
> for v4 and thought that everything would be so much better. I wanted =
to=20
> help and started the "pynfs" project. Today, I have a different opini=
on. I=20
> think v3 is a fairly good protocol, if you use it correctly. For exam=
ple,=20
> many people don't realize that you don't need the portmapper, that yo=
u can=20
> use a single well-known TCP port, that you can use RPCSEC_GSS and so=20
> forth, even with v3.=20
Somehow this reminds me of IPv4 vs. IPv6. IIRC some protocol features h=
ave
in a sense been "backported" to IPv4.
--=20
=46rank