Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-2715-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <6dbecf8d-1074-48bb-8395-e4edf2c53109@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:01:13 -0400
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: nfs-utils' .service files not usable with nfsv4-server.service
To: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
 Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
References: <CAEdQ38GJgxponxNxkcv+t8mhwRPzOjan58MTBgOL8p9tY=rvTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <79c69668-4f8e-448e-9f50-6977cda662fc@redhat.com>
 <CAEdQ38FOP0_g0FK5DYz954OwfJjLUf2pjQL1CX=VNC60kd8HEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <50d1fcab-ba94-405e-896a-5bbae128998b@redhat.com>
 <3138D81C-EAD9-41CD-A32D-DEA4AA002CEE@oracle.com>
 <1a5a0fcd-0514-42ae-8d22-2d534327447f@themaw.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1a5a0fcd-0514-42ae-8d22-2d534327447f@themaw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hey Ian!

Good to hear from you!!

On 4/7/24 7:57 PM, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 8/4/24 00:29, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>> On Apr 7, 2024, at 10:45 AM, Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/6/24 6:26 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 4:37 PM Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately the idea of having a nfsv4 only server
>>>>> did not go over well with upstream.
>>>> Which upstream do you mean? nfs-utils, Linux kernel?
>>> The NFS server maintainers... they didn't push back hard
>>> but the didn't it was necessary.
>> I'm sympathetic to some folks wanting a narrower footprint,
>> but I think we'd like to have support for all versions
>> packaged and available for an NFS server administrator,
>> right out of the shrink-wrap. Currently, most installations
>> want to deploy v3 and v4, so we should cater to the common
>> case.
> 
> I have to say I agree with Chuck.
Yes... I definitely see Chuck's point.

> 
> 
> Over the years I have had to deal with the consequences of dropping support
> 
> for NFS versions. So far that has been at the distribution level but if it
> 
> had been at the upstream level I would have had a much harder time of it.
> 
> 
> am-utils for example, yes it's maybe not a good case because it lacks 
> upstream
> 
> support nowadays, but I still work on it. It uses an NFS client 
> implementation
> 
> to provide automount support and NFS v2 was ideal for the localhost 
> server but
> 
> v2 support was removed from distro kernel builds and I had to implement 
> an NFS
> 
> v3 server for this which was very much overkill.
My apologies... That was me. Removing v2 cut down
the testing matrix two-fold. v3 was there to replace
v2... I just did the obvious.

> 
> 
> Now there's talk of dropping v3 support which will spell the end of 
> am-utils,
> 
> unnecessarily IMHO.
Yes... I was poking the bear when I said "deprecate" v3. Knowing
full well it would go over like a lead balloon :-)

But coming up with a way of separating the protocols
so only one can be used (client or server) in VMs or
containers is a bad idea?

> 
> 
> I can understand the urge to drop v2 but there are still many v3 users 
> so I wonder
> 
> about the wisdom of even thinking about dropping v3 support and multiple 
> packages,
> 
> IMHO, will introduce an unnecessary downstream overhead. It's hard 
> enough to keep
> 
> up with the workload as it is.
> 
> 
> I also gat that mostly what I'm saying has happened at distro level but 
> please don't
> 
> go down this path upstream too.
You are right... this is distro level conversation but
upstream should be involved... IMHO.

steved.

> 
> 
> Ian
> 
>>
>> As I recall, the NFSv4-only mechanism proposed at the time
>> was pretty clunky. If you have alternative ideas, I'm happy
>> to consider them. But let's recognize that an NFSv4-only
>> deployment is the special case here, and not make life more
>> difficult for everyone else, especially folks who might
>> start with an NFSv4-only deployment and need to add NFSv3
>> later, for whatever crazy reason.
>>
>> The nfs-server unit should be made to do the right thing
>> no matter what is installed on the system and no matter what
>> is in /etc/nfs.conf. I don't see why screwing with the
>> distro packaging is needed?
>>
>> -- 
>> Chuck Lever
>>
>>
>