From: "David Shirley" Subject: Re: KNFSD information needed Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 23:13:54 +0800 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <00c901c31186$9cc8efd0$6e00a8c0@compaq3> References: <002301c310aa$0ef33350$6e00a8c0@compaq3> <200305021626.42933.bernd-schubert@web.de> <001f01c3112a$5ef5c6d0$6e00a8c0@compaq3> <200305031427.19693.bernd-schubert@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Return-path: Received: from mail-02.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.34] helo=mail.iinet.net.au) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19Bym0-0000S2-00 for ; Sat, 03 May 2003 08:18:01 -0700 To: "Bernd Schubert" , "Trond Myklebust" , Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Bernd, Trond, No not interesting in unfsd :) Yes my nfsd shows up as [nfsd]. - i didn't occur to me that the "[]" meant kernel :) We have nfs working fine, but like i said reading some doco online made reference to nfsd as well as knfsd. This doco is about 3 years old however so maybe the too have mereged since then. In fact the html docs included in nfs-utils-0.3.3 package (redhat) make reference to a userspace and kernel space nfsd, with performance specs as well :) I dont mean to put anyone down or anything, i think the nfs team are doing a great job - i understand that its all volunteer work :) I will read up on file locking - but this whole knfsd naming issue caught me off guard :) Cheers again Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernd Schubert" To: "David Shirley" ; Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [NFS] KNFSD information needed > On Saturday 03 May 2003 06:13, David Shirley wrote: > > Bernd, > > > > This is why I am getting confused, because I have seen papers > > comparing userspace nfsd with knfsd - performance and feature wise. > > Why do you want to compare unfsd and knfsd ? Just believe me, unless you have > very special conditions, you won't want to try unfsd. > Furthermore those papers should be rather outdated since except the ClusterNFS > users (we belong to them) nobody uses unfsd nowadays. > > > > > Also some people are making reference to a knfsd process which > > i dont have, even though i have the appropriate options turned on > > in the kernel. > > Running 'ps ax' knfsd should appear like this: > > 637 ? SW 569:03 [nfsd] > > Whereas unfsd (in our case ClusterNFS) would appear as: > > 522 ? S 14:39 [rpc.nfsd.cnfs] > > > Or are you the 'Debian User' who doesn't manage to get knfsd running ? Without > further information from his log-files nobody will we able to help him in any > case. > > > > > Yes i have see the howto and there is no reference to knfsd, which > > is why i am getting confused - perhaps the was once a knfsd but now it > > is merged with the other nfsd? > > The hole howto is about knfsd ;) > > > Bernd > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs