This patchset is a selection of the useful parts of the NFS server
patches which comprise the SGI enhancedNFS product, forward ported,
merged and reorganised.
Bruce: all of these are potentially candidates for 2.6.30.
--
Greg
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Greg Banks wrote:
> This patchset is a selection of the useful parts of the NFS server
> patches which comprise the SGI enhancedNFS product, forward ported,
> merged and reorganised.
OK, thanks.
> Bruce: all of these are potentially candidates for 2.6.30.
It's probably too late for 2.6.30 (the 4.1 stuff I've promised to try to
make a serious attempt at, but that's it). I'll publish a for-2.6.31
branch as soon as I can.... (But of course anything that looks like a
bugfix I'll keep considering for 2.6.30.)
--b.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM, J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Greg Banks wrote:
>> Bruce: all of these are potentially candidates for 2.6.30.
>
> It's probably too late for 2.6.30 (the 4.1 stuff I've promised to try to
> make a serious attempt at, but that's it). I'll publish a for-2.6.31
> branch as soon as I can.... (But of course anything that looks like a
> bugfix I'll keep considering for 2.6.30.)
No worries. I figured as much, but the patches really did need to be
posted this week.
--
Greg.
Greg Banks wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM, J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Greg Banks wrote:
>
>>> Bruce: all of these are potentially candidates for 2.6.30.
>> It's probably too late for 2.6.30 (the 4.1 stuff I've promised to try to
>> make a serious attempt at, but that's it). I'll publish a for-2.6.31
>> branch as soon as I can.... (But of course anything that looks like a
>> bugfix I'll keep considering for 2.6.30.)
>
> No worries. I figured as much, but the patches really did need to be
> posted this week.
So, what is enhancedNFS? Does enhancedNFS comply with current RFCs, or
deviate?
What features does it add?
Jeff
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greg Banks wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM, J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Greg Banks wrote:
>>
>>>> Bruce: all of these are potentially candidates for 2.6.30.
>>>
>>> It's probably too late for 2.6.30 (the 4.1 stuff I've promised to try to
>>> make a serious attempt at, but that's it). I'll publish a for-2.6.31
>>> branch as soon as I can.... (But of course anything that looks like a
>>> bugfix I'll keep considering for 2.6.30.)
>>
>> No worries. I figured as much, but the patches really did need to be
>> posted this week.
>
> So, what is enhancedNFS? Does enhancedNFS comply with current RFCs, or
> deviate?
>
> What features does it add?
It uses the same protocols. The server is faster and more scalable
and has more statistics to drive the web-based management UI. The
name is perhaps poorly chosen.
--
Greg.