From: "Muntz, Daniel" Subject: RE: A new NFSv4 server... Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:31:03 -0800 Message-ID: <01AE8AF878612047A442668306EAEB05016D509C@SACEXMV01.hq.netapp.com> 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-8859-1" Cc: NFS list , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peter_=C5strand?= , "Jeff Garzik" Return-path: In-reply-to: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org List-ID: I like it. NFS 3.5. Drop pNFS into the v3 protocol (a greatly simplified = pNFS compared to what we ended up with in 4.1), and you'd have yourself a s= weet little distributed fs. The important part is that any such effort be = called "NFS x.y". Naming is important, or we'd be running AFS/DFS instead = of NFS 4.0 (please, try to resist flaming me on the hyperbole). -Dan -----Original Message----- From: Peter =C5strand [mailto:astrand@cendio.se] = Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 1:15 AM To: Jeff Garzik Cc: NFS list; nfsv4@linux-nfs.org Subject: Re: A new NFSv4 server... [About v4] On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > I really wish the entire wire protocol were scrapped and replaced = > > > with something more sane, and easier to parse. > > You had me worried there for a moment, I thought you might be the = > > first person to admit to liking the NFS4 protocol design. Couldn't agree more. = > In my personal opinion, version 4 of NFS is a quantum-leap improvement = > over previous versions. While I used NFS v3 extensively, I always = > felt it was a crappy protocol, and unworthy of serious development = > effort. That changed with v4. ... > > > It's tempting to see what would arise from a clean-slate wire = > > > protocol effort, something that is otherwise compatible with NFS = > > > 4.x operations, objects, and data model. > = > It's more like v4 is a vast relative improvement over prior NFS. = > Given the huge number of NFS users and sites, IMO v4 is a huge = > improvement for Unix file sharing overall. Many years ago, before NFSv4 was finished, I felt the same. I was waiting f= or v4 and thought that everything would be so much better. I wanted to help= and started the "pynfs" project. Today, I have a different opinion. I thin= k v3 is a fairly good protocol, if you use it correctly. For example, many = people don't realize that you don't need the portmapper, that you can use a= single well-known TCP port, that you can use RPCSEC_GSS and so forth, even= with v3. = I think v4 has a few valuable improvements, but it comes with a very high p= rice. v3 has a minimalistic beauty which v4 lacks. For example, take a look= at the OPEN operation with 7 arguments, of which many are complex data str= uctures: (cfh), seqid, share_access, share_deny, owner, openhow, claim -> (cfh), stateid, cinfo, rflags, open_confirm, attrset delegation Not pretty... = > Oh, certainly. I was mainly thinking a replacement of the wire = > protocol would be an easier step for people to swallow than a new protoco= l. 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. = Regards, = --- Peter =C5strand ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB http://www.cendio.se Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Link=F6ping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00