From: Greg Banks Subject: Re: [grumble] connected UDP sockets [grumble] Solaris [grumble] Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:47:06 +1100 Message-ID: <490001CA.8010801@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <18687.63003.966163.267177@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Return-path: Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:48986 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751318AbYJWEpR (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:45:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <18687.63003.966163.267177-wvvUuzkyo1EYVZTmpyfIwg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Neil Brown wrote: > > Much as it pains me to say this, maybe we just need to treat UDP as > legacy for all protocols (PORTMAP, MOUNT, NLM, NSM), not just NFS. > None of these problems occur with TCP. TCP does have a slightly > higher overhead for simple transactions, but it is a cost that is > unlikely to be noticeable in reality. > > > Thoughts? > > I see only two reasons to keep any UDP support at all in either client or server. a) legacy compatibility, for toy/broken/antique clients/servers/firewalls b) on the server, supporting broadcast RPC to/through the portmapper -- Greg Banks, P.Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group. Be like the squirrel. I don't speak for SGI.