From: Frank van Maarseveen Subject: Re: A new NFSv4 server... Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:50:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20080104135048.GA27131@janus> 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=iso-8859-15 Cc: Jeff Garzik , NFS list , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org To: Peter =?iso-8859-15?Q?=C5strand?= Return-path: Received: from frankvm.xs4all.nl ([80.126.170.174]:54441 "EHLO janus.localdomain" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752035AbYADNuu convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:50:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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