Chuck Lever wrote: > 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 I would say ignore this particular option... since, in a sense, v4 give you this option by default due to delegations... but point well taken... The mapping of v3 to v4 and visa versa will have to be addressed... I would guess in the mount command... > > a) seems like the least surprising behavior. > > What about "proto=udp" ? Linux supports UDP for NFSv4, though other > server implementations probably don't. If that's specified on a mount > command line without a vers= option, what version should we choose? I think people just want things to work... so if they specify only UDP and the server supports V4, we give them V4/TCP. If they REALLY want UDP, they would have to specify 'nfsvers=3,udp'. Or, if there was an mount configuration file, they could specify the MAX_VERSION to be 3 and then -o udp mounts work as expected... > >> For implementing more complex policies, maybe we can extend >> the command syntax to accept a range and/or an ordered list >> of versions to try. > > Steve mentioned /etc/default/nfs on Solaris. I could see > /etc/sysconfig/nfs on Linux containing a couple of lines defining the > range of allowable NFS versions, if we think this is necessary. This is > a simple pre-existing file, and has little potential for introducing > negative side-effects. The /etc/sysconfig/nfs is a distro only file... Meaning I know of only one distro that uses that file.. So I would tend to shy away from putting anything in that... steved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
