On 09/30/2009 07:05 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> I can't see how it would cause a mount storm: all you'd be doing is >>> issuing a mount request twice, once in each protocol. >> Times 1000 very 5 seconds... > > So 2000 every 5 seconds as opposed to 1000 every 5 seconds. This is > surely better than returning an incorrect "directory does not exist" > response to almost every NFS user who upgrades. And it will be almost > everyone: maintaining servers on older versions of RHEL and upgrading > clients to recent Fedora is normal. Or the F-12 clients can change the default back to v3 by either setting the Nfsvers=3 variable the NFSMount_Global_Options section in the /etc/nfsmount.conf file, or set the '-o v3' mount option on the command line. > >> I really don't think the server people would appreciate all those >> extra cycles and network traffic... Doing something like this would >> be hack... a hack that I could not push upstream... There are other >> workagrounds (defined in original mail) that I would rather >> explore... > > But they are all pretty unpleasant. The user gets an obscure error > message that indicates nothing to them except "NFS is broken". > They then have to either export root from the server or edit their > fstab. I'm not sure I agree with the "obscure error message", but yes the client will have to change when mount to a older Linux server, only a Linux server btw... > >> I don't see how pushing, incorporating and utilizing the latest >> technology available can "severely damaging the reputation of >> Fedora". > > Really? Why not? What you are proposing to is indistinguishable to a > user from breaking NFS. I can easily see it. With all new release of Fedora (or any OS for that matter) there are always some pain threshold people have to go through. I just see this is one those thresholds.. > >> To be quite frank, my goal is just the opposite... I want Fedora >> have a reputation of being on the breaking edge of technology... I >> think that is a good thing! > > Me too. So, let's see how we can do that without making Fedora more > fragile. I can't agree with this more... steved. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
