From: "Muntz, Daniel" Subject: RE: The next step: nfsvers=4 Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:50:02 -0700 Message-ID: <7A24DF798E223B4C9864E8F92E8C93EC026940A0@SACMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com> References: <49C2704F.5050303@RedHat.com> <7A24DF798E223B4C9864E8F92E8C93EC026043D3@SACMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <855593AD-7541-443F-BA92-491EC32FEDFB@oracle.com> <49C28201.1020301@panasas.com> <1FF921B7-4A44-49D7-8E01-1DAC5D18C1AB@oracle.com> <49C382F1.6080205@RedHat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "Benny Halevy" , "Linux NFS Mailing List" To: "Steve Dickson" , "Chuck Lever" Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:47960 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751586AbZCTSu0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:50:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49C382F1.6080205-AfCzQyP5zfLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Dickson [mailto:SteveD@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 4:50 AM > To: Chuck Lever > Cc: Benny Halevy; Linux NFS Mailing List > Subject: Re: The next step: nfsvers=4 > > Chuck Lever wrote: > > If no vers= is specified and only NFSv4 is available on the server, > > but something like "nocto" shows up on the command line > mount options, do we: > > > > a) fail the mount, or > > b) ignore the nocto option > I would say ignore this particular option... since, in a > sense, v4 give you this option by default due to > delegations... but point well taken... The mapping of > v3 to v4 and visa versa will have to be addressed... I would > guess in the mount command... > > > > > a) seems like the least surprising behavior. > > > > What about "proto=udp" ? Linux supports UDP for NFSv4, > though other > > server implementations probably don't. If that's specified > on a mount > > command line without a vers= option, what version should we choose? > I think people just want things to work... so if they specify > only UDP and the server supports V4, we give them V4/TCP. If > they REALLY want UDP, they would have to specify 'nfsvers=3,udp'. But, and this is a poor example, they REALLY want v4 and UDP? There should be consistency in the way rules are applied. If specifying vers=x requires the mount to match version x exactly, then imho, proto=y should only succeed with protocol y. There should be a way for the user to specify exactly what they want, and fail if they can't have it. Similarly, if someone specifies sec=krb5p, you wouldn't want to fall back to sec=sys :-) > > Or, if there was an mount configuration file, they could > specify the MAX_VERSION to be 3 and then -o udp mounts work > as expected... > > > > >> For implementing more complex policies, maybe we can extend the > >> command syntax to accept a range and/or an ordered list of > versions > >> to try. > > > > Steve mentioned /etc/default/nfs on Solaris. I could see > > /etc/sysconfig/nfs on Linux containing a couple of lines > defining the > > range of allowable NFS versions, if we think this is > necessary. This > > is a simple pre-existing file, and has little potential for > > introducing negative side-effects. > The /etc/sysconfig/nfs is a distro only file... Meaning I > know of only one distro that uses that file.. So I would tend > to shy away from putting anything in that... > > steved. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-nfs" in the body of a message to > majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >