From: Neil Brown Subject: Re: A new NFSv4 server... Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 21:05:25 +1100 Message-ID: <18302.1253.830853.173937@notabene.brown> References: <477CD231.30603@garzik.org> <20080103163200.GB30029@fieldses.org> <477DC501.3060104@garzik.org> <477DD11B.40909@melbourne.sgi.com> <477DDA86.6020100@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff Garzik , NFS list , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_=C3=85strand?= Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34750 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753206AbYADKFe (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:05:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: message from Peter Astrand on Friday January 4 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday January 4, astrand-+4tYiAq3b6azQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org wrote: > > > Oh, certainly. I was mainly thinking a replacement of the wire protocol would > > be an easier step for people to swallow than a new protocol. > > I've been thinking of trying to put together something like NFS v3.5. Some > parts of v4 are nice, but the complexity is too high. > That is soooooooo tempting. Of course we would need to be clear on how it is better than NFS, CIFS, 9P, and CRFS to name but a few. And it would not be a small undertaking. But it is very tempting. NeilBrown