From: Bernd Schubert Subject: Re: kernel+userspace based nfsd running in parallel on linux? Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:17:30 +0100 Message-ID: <200612161717.31090.bernd-schubert@gmx.de> References: <1499049521@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Cc: devzero@web.de Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GvcEJ-0002rd-Hx for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:17:43 -0800 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by mail.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1GvcEH-0005FK-Tu for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:17:45 -0800 To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <1499049521@web.de> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Hi Roland, On Saturday 16 December 2006 16:20, devzero@web.de wrote: > Hello ! > > for a special scenario, i´m thinking about running the classic > userspace nfsd in parallel with the kernel based. we are are already doing this for a long time. > > i think this _could_ be possible by binding the userspace one to the > primary interface (eth0, ip 1.2.3.4) and the kernel based one to a virtual > interface (eth0:1, ip 1.2.3.5) Hmm, I thing this is presently not possible. I might be wrong, but I think = neither knfsd nor any userspace nfs daemon presently supports binding to = selected interfaces. Thinks they alsways bind to all interfaces. We doing it by using different ports for the daemons, knfsd is running as = usual on 2049 and unfsd (unfs3) is running on another port. One also needs = to tell one of the daemon not to register to the portmapper, unfs3 also = supports that. [...] > if there isn´t a killer argument against this (does not work by desi= gn > because...), i would like to try to elaborate to make this work. if this > fails because there is no way to specify a dedicated interface to listen = on > - maybe this could be fixed with some few modifications to the code... Any argument against simply using different ports? Cheers, Bernd -- = Bernd Schubert PCI / Theoretische Chemie Universit=E4t Heidelberg INF 229 69120 Heidelberg ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge&CID=3DDE= VDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs