On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Greg Banks wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:28:00AM +1100, Greg Banks wrote: >> >>>> Bruce: all of these are potentially candidates for 2.6.30. >>> >>> It's probably too late for 2.6.30 (the 4.1 stuff I've promised to try to >>> make a serious attempt at, but that's it). I'll publish a for-2.6.31 >>> branch as soon as I can.... (But of course anything that looks like a >>> bugfix I'll keep considering for 2.6.30.) >> >> No worries. I figured as much, but the patches really did need to be >> posted this week. > > So, what is enhancedNFS? Does enhancedNFS comply with current RFCs, or > deviate? > > What features does it add? It uses the same protocols. The server is faster and more scalable and has more statistics to drive the web-based management UI. The name is perhaps poorly chosen. -- Greg. -- 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
