From: =?UTF-8?Q?Peter_=C3=85strand?= Subject: Re: A new NFSv4 server... Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:15:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: 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: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="789237761-1449662124-1199436984=:5004" Cc: NFS list , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: Received: from mail.cendio.se ([193.12.253.69]:62459 "EHLO mail.cendio.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753310AbYADJeL (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jan 2008 04:34:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <477DDA86.6020100@garzik.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --789237761-1449662124-1199436984=:5004 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: [About v4] On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > I really wish the entire wire protocol were scrapped and replaced wit= h > > > 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. Couldn't agree more.=20 > In my personal opinion, version 4 of NFS is a quantum-leap improvement ov= er > 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. =2E.. > > > It's tempting to see what would arise from a clean-slate wire protoco= l > > > effort, something that is otherwise compatible with NFS 4.x operation= s, > > > objects, and data model. >=20 > It's more like v4 is a vast relative improvement over prior NFS. Given t= he > 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= =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 opinion. I= =20 think v3 is a fairly good protocol, if you use it correctly. For example,= =20 many people don't realize that you don't need the portmapper, that you can= =20 use a single well-known TCP port, that you can use RPCSEC_GSS and so=20 forth, even with v3.=20 I think v4 has a few valuable improvements, but it comes with a very high= =20 price. v3 has a minimalistic beauty which v4 lacks. For example, take a=20 look at the OPEN operation with 7 arguments, of which many are complex=20 data structures: (cfh), seqid, share_access, share_deny, owner, openhow, claim -> (cfh), stateid, cinfo, rflags, open_confirm, attrset delegation Not pretty... =20 > 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= =20 parts of v4 are nice, but the complexity is too high.=20 Regards,=20 --- Peter =C3=85strand=09=09ThinLinc Chief Developer Cendio AB=09=09http://www.cendio.se Wallenbergs gata 4 583 30 Link=C3=B6ping=09Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 --789237761-1449662124-1199436984=:5004--