On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 16:13, Martin Wege <martin.l.wege@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 1:28 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 19:11 +0200, Dan Shelton wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 23:46, Steve Dickson <steved@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey! > > > > > > > > On 5/14/24 5:57 PM, Dan Shelton wrote: > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > > > Solaris, Windows and libnfs NFSv4 clients support RFC2224 URLs, which > > > > > provide platform-independent paths where resources can be mounted > > > > > from, i.e. nfs://myhost//dir1/dir2 > > > > > > > > > > Could Linux /sbin/mount.nfs4 support this too, please? > > > > Why? What does it bring to the table that the Linux client > > > > does already do via v4... with the except, of course, public > > > > filehandles, which is something I'm pretty sure the Linux > > > > client will not support. > > > > > > This is NOT for Linux only. Every OS has its own system to describe > > > shares, and not all are compatible. URLs are portable. > > > > > > > > > > > So again why? WebNFS died with Sun... Plus RFC2224 talks > > > > about v2 and v3... How does it fit in a V4 world. > > > > > > This is NOT about WebNFS or SUN, this is to make the job of admins easier. > > > > > > > I think Steve is just trying to get at the use-case for this. Who is > > using nfs:// URLs in their environment, and why? IOW, how will adding > > this make things better? > > > > Then there are the more practical questions: > > > > - will this require kernel support? If I mount using a nfs:// URL, > > should I expect to see that in /proc/self/mounts, instead of a > > host:/export ? > > > > - do you need support for public filehandles? Those were largely > > ignored by most NFS implementors, including Linux. That opens an > > entirely separate can of worms. > > > > I'm happy to consider patches that add support for this (including > > documentation), but I'd need to understand why this is a material > > improvement over the traditional ":/" syntax. > > > > No, traditional syntax is :\, traditional syntax is UNC form, > traditional syntax is GUI with hostname and path fields. No, > traditional syntax are options -H hostname, -P path. There is another use case for URLs: Unicode characters in hostname and path. Not really applicable in the US, but the french frog eaters and CJKV (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese) would find that useful. Ced -- Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@xxxxxxxxx> [https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CedricBlancher/] Institute Pasteur
