On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 21:48 -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > SSBkbyBtaW5kOyBpdCBpcyBjbGVhcmx5IHN0YXJ0aW5nIHRvIGJpdHJvdCBkdWUg
> > dG8gYW4gYWJzZW5jZSBvZiB1c2Vycy4NCk1haW50ZW5hbmNlIG9mIHVudXNlZCBjb2RlIGlzIGFj
> > dHVhbGx5IF9tb3JlXyBvZiBhIHBhaW4sIG5vdCBsZXNzLg0KDQpTbyB1bmZzZCBpcyBvbmUgc29s
> > dXRpb24uIEtlZXBpbmcgYSBWTSB3aXRoIGFuIG9sZGVyIHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlDQpMaW51eCBr
> > ZXJuZWwgdGhhdCBzdGlsbCBzdXBwb3J0cyBORlN2MiBpcyBhbm90aGVyLiBWb2x1bnRlZXJpbmcg
> > dG8NCm1haW50YWluIHRoZSBjb2RlIGlzIGEgdGhpcmQuDQoN
>
> Which can be base64 decoded (why was it ever ENcoded?) to
>
> > I do mind; it is clearly starting to bitrot due to an absence of users.
> > Maintenance of unused code is actually _more_ of a pain, not less.
> >
> > So unfsd is one solution. Keeping a VM with an older version of the
> > Linux kernel that still supports NFSv2 is another. Volunteering to
> > maintain the code is a third.
>
> If I might ask, though, is the pain concentrated more on the client or
> the server side?
>
> NFSv2 server support seems a fairly simple matter of some old
> compatibility RPC calls. The main pain is the limited size of the file
> handle and (especially) readdir cookies.
Well, I'm really glad to hear that after several people spent 3-4 hours
debugging an NFSv2-only server side problem last Friday. Please let me
know the next time I can help deal with another fairly simple matter of
old compatibility calls...
OK, I'll bite. What is this business-critical application that you are
running and that will only run on a machine that is incapable of running
a mere 20-year old protocol and that must have a 30 year old protocol?
The fact that you are all in a huff about base64 encoded emails
indicates that this is not something you are running on anything as
sophisticated as a cell phone.
> Client support is probably more complicated, as NFS's "stateless server"
> model puts the bulk of the complexity on the client, and you need a
> thicker layer of logic to translate the operations into a different
> vocabulary pf RPC calls.
>
> I don't think NFSv2 client support would be mourned much; trying to to
> use such an ancient limited machine as a file server seems stupid.
>
> It's NFSv2 server support that I, and I believe Larry, are interested
> in preserving, in order to provide services to ancient clients.
>
> The only real use of v2 client code is te test the server.
Good. Then it won't be missed.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
