From: Kevin Constantine Subject: Re: The next step: nfsvers=4 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:00:07 -0700 Message-ID: <49E92617.4080504@disney.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> <49c29203.85c2f10a.098d.17b5@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Chuck Lever , Benny Halevy , Steve Dickson , Linux NFS Mailing List To: Tom Talpey Return-path: Received: from mailgate1.disneyanimation.com ([12.188.26.101]:36047 "EHLO mailgate1.disneyanimation.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752964AbZDRBAJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:00:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49c29203.85c2f10a.098d.17b5-ATjtLOhZ0NVl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tom Talpey wrote: > At 02:13 PM 3/19/2009, Chuck Lever wrote: >> On Mar 19, 2009, at Mar 19, 2009, 1:33 PM, Benny Halevy wrote: >>> I think that if no version is specified all versions that >>> the client supports should be tried, highest first. >>> Otherwise mount.nfs should try only the specified version. >> One nit is that the set of mount options supported by nfs4 is >> different than the set supported by nfs. clientaddr= is supported by >> nfs4, but not by nfs, for example. I believe that nocto is not >> supported by nfs4. The mountproto option is only supported by nfs. >> >> 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 >> >> a) seems like the least surprising behavior. > > I think the "sloppy" option might be relevant here too. > > While we're on the subject of sloppy, what about the automounter? > It has always been an issue to deploy automounter maps which are > shared by diverse client populations - there are significant issues > for older Linux clients, and newer Solaris ones for that matter, with > NFSv4. > I ran into this very situation today which caused me to go back through the archive and find this thread. Hopefully it isn't too late to add my two cents. I want to begin testing nfsv4 in our environment, we rely heavily on autofs, and have a mixed OS environment, and some servers support v4, while others don't. Most clients should continue to mount with v3, while a few select test machines should mount with v4 if the server supports it. OSX and (i think) Solaris seem to use fstype=nfs and [nfs]vers=2,3,4 to specify the nfs version. Linux on the other hand, requires that I set fstype=nfs4, and will fail to mount if [nfs]vers is present. If nfsvers was just ignored or better yet, was honored (if I set fstype=nfs, and nfsvers=4, I don't really care that you change fstype to nfs4 on me under the covers), it would eliminate one hurdle in the quest for a unified automount map (at least in our environment). -kevin > I would strongly suggest touching and/or changing as few options as > possible, and paying close attention to the results with legacy or > generic configurations on new kernels. The more lenient, the better > IMO, except where specific options require specific actions. > > Tom. > > -- > 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