kern/136865: [nfs] [patch] NFS exports atomic and on-the-fly
atomic updates
Martin Birgmeier
Martin.Birgmeier at aon.at
Sun May 27 11:59:37 UTC 2012
Hi Andrey,
One more question: I am running 8.3, 9.0, and 7.4 on various machines.
Do you have patches for these versions, too?
Regards,
Martin
On 05/22/12 10:04, Andrey Simonenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:10:04AM +0000, Martin Birgmeier wrote:
>> The following reply was made to PR kern/136865; it has been noted by GNATS.
>>
>> From: Martin Birgmeier<Martin.Birgmeier at aon.at>
>> To: bug-followup at FreeBSD.org, simon at comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: kern/136865: [nfs] [patch] NFS exports atomic and on-the-fly
>> atomic updates
>> Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:04:01 +0200
>>
>> Dear Andrey,
>>
>> It seems that you have done some great work here, and I would really
>> like to see this integrated into the core FreeBSD distribution (I was
>> the submitter of http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/131342).
>>
>> I would like to try out your patches and have two questions:
>>
>> - Do your patches support multiple zfs sharenfs specifications as
>> proposed in http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=147881 (I am
>> using this)?
> The exports(5) manual page says that address specifications must be specified
> after options. The nfs.exports(5) file format allows to use options after
> address specifications, so they can overwrite previously specified options.
>
> It is possible to specify all settings for one file system in one line,
> no ';' like separators are required.
>
> For example line:
>
> /fs -ro -sec krb5 1.1.1.1 -nfsv4 no -rw 2.2.2.2 -sec sys -nfsv4 yes 3.3.3.3
>
> will be translated to ("nfse -t ..." output):
>
> Pathname /fs
> Export specifications:
> -rw -sec sys -maproot=-2:-2 -host 3.3.3.3
> -rw -sec krb5 -maproot=-2:-2 -nfsv4 no -host 2.2.2.2
> -ro -sec krb5 -maproot=-2:-2 -host 1.1.1.1
>
>>
>> - Could you give a concise list of incompatibilities (and even
>> regressions if they should exist at all) of your solution compared to
>> the standard one? - As to the advantages, I am already convinced. :-)
> In short: if nfse is run in compatible mode with mountd ("nfse -C ..."),
> then it is more compatible with exports(5) than mountd is. If one did
> not follow rules of exports(5), then "nfse -C ..." can be incompatible
> with mountd.
>
> If nfse is run in native nfs.export(5) configuration file format mode,
> then logic of configuration looks like exports(5), but differs in some
> places.
>
> So, when we speak about "incompatibilities" then it is necessary to
> distinguish incompatibilities of "nfse native mode" vs mountd and
> incompatibilities of "nfse compatible mode" vs mountd.
>
> I suggest to check whether "nfse -C ..." is compatible with mountd
> using instructions described here:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2010-May/008421.html
>
> You do not need to install anything or modify existent system for
> testing. Can you try "nfse -Ct ..." and tell me whether "nfse -C ..."
> is compatible enough with mountd (try correct configurations and
> configurations with mistakes).
>
> I have list of difference somewhere, I'll try to find it.
>
>
More information about the freebsd-fs
mailing list