Re: mount default minor version behavior

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/12/2014 09:31 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> My point is I don't think we need another variable, say
>>> > DefaultMinVers, that defines the minor version of v4. I'm
>>> > thinking that's its overkill and adds unnecessary complexity.
>>> >
>> I never said we do.
> Ok... I misunderstood...
>
>>
>> I think we're in agreement mostly; the only point where I see
>> disagreement is when Defaultvers is unset.
>> My position is that in that situation, we don't know what starting
>> point to use for minor version negotiation, and so we should just
>> default to minor version 0: if the sysadmin want a different default,
>> then the answer is to set Defaultvers...
> Gotta... and there is a disagreement... I saying we make the
> default the highest supported minor version. With the
> Linux client and server that's v4.2. So when no option is
> given and Defaultvers is not set, try 4.2, then 4.1 and
> then 4.0 and finally v3.

Only for Linux 3.11 and newer, and only if they enable CONFIG_NFS_V4_2
/ CONFIG_NFSD_V4_SECURITY_LABEL.

Unless we want to have different defaults for older kernels, this sort
of implies that we're moving in the direction of coupling the
nfs-utils releases more tightly to the kernel version. I'm neutral to
that, but I do want to call it out.

> But I do see your point of not having to recompile mount
> when we want to change the default minor release so
> how that default is set is the question... Maybe
> an environment variable??

That's still something that requires a user or sysadmin action, and it
wouldn't really play well with autofs and its ilk. As Marie Antoinette
would say: "Let them edit /etc/nfsmount.conf"

> One down side of being the aggressive with minor version
> negotiation is legacy servers (aka AIX). Today we
> don't negotiate well with those types of servers...
> Its not our fault, but is a problem...

Is this because they don't implement that part of RFC3530?

-- 
Trond Myklebust

Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData

trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux