On 3/4/21 9:24 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 08:34:45AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> >> On 3/3/21 10:23 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 05:33:23PM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/24/21 3:30 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:08:08PM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >>>>>> nfsv4.exportd is a daemon that will listen for only v4 mount upcalls. >>>>>> The idea is to allow distros to build a v4 only package >>>>>> which will have a much smaller footprint than the >>>>>> entire nfs-utils package. >>>>>> >>>>>> exportd uses no RPC code, which means none of the >>>>>> code or arguments that deal with v3 was ported, >>>>>> this again, makes the footprint much smaller. >>>>> >>>>> How much smaller? >>>> Will a bit smaller... but a number of daemons like nfsd[cld,clddb,cldnts] >>>> need to also come a long. >>> >>> Could we get some numbers? >>> >>> Looks like nfs-utils in F33 is about 1.2M: >>> >>> $ rpm -qi nfs-utils|grep ^Size >>> Size : 1243512 >> Here are the numbers. Remember things are still in development so >> these may not be the final numbers >> >> For the v4 only client >> rpm -qi nfsv4-client-utils-2* | grep ^Size >> Size : 374573 >> >> for the v4only server: >> rpm -qi nfsv4-utils-2* | grep ^Size >> Size : 942088 > > $ rpm -qi nfs-utils|grep ^Size > Size : 1243512 > $ echo $((374573+942088)) > 1316661 > > So, they're a little bigger than nfs-utils, taken together. Like you > say, under development, probably there's just something overlooked that > could be removed from one or the other or moved to an nfs-common > package. With containers in mind, I was thinking it would be one or the other not both. I can see a container only wanting an client or server but not both. > > That might make a case for splitting up client and server sides for > minimal installs that need only one or the other. > > If it's installed size we're working on, though, do we have some target > in mind here, though? No. Do we know what the container people are aiming for? No. I'm sure they don't know this is going on. > I had some idea glic is more in the 10s of megabytes, and a > minimal Fedora install is in the 100s, so I just wonder if it's worth > chasing after 10s-100s of K. I really don't think we need a target size... The size will be smaller because how the packages are broken up. Installing one of the v4 packages will always have smaller footprint than the entire nfs-utils package. steved. > > --b. >
