nfsv41 mount semantics question

[Spencer Shepler]

On Mar 10, 2008, at 5:33 AM, Benny Halevy wrote:

> On Mar. 10, 2008, 6:40 +0200, Spencer Shepler  
> <Spencer.Shepler at Sun.COM> wrote:
>> As for Solaris, all NFS mounts are of type "nfs".
>> There will be a new vers=xx selection in the case that
>
> And the default?  Are you going with 4.1, falling back to
> 4 down to 2 if not supported?   Or will you start at 4.0
> unless vers=41 is specified?

Default will be 41.

Spencer

>> an admin wants NFSv4.1 specifically.   Also at this point,
>> there will be no option to enable/disable pNFS functionality.
>> If it exists and the server supports the clients layout type
>> functionality, then the client will ask for and use layouts.
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Benny Halevy wrote:
>>
>>> Muntz, Daniel wrote:
>>>> How about we do what Solaris does?  I don't know what that is, but
>>>> it's
>>> first, please s/do/look at/ :)
>>> It will be nice to be compatible with Solaris, but you have to
>>> take into account the existing infrastructure and linux admins'
>>> established habits.
>>>
>>>> probably reasonable.  Might also be nice to have an option to  
>>>> disable
>>>> pnfs (assuming it's enabled by default by being part of 4.1),
>>>> something
>>>> like '-o nopnfs' (forcing write-through the MDS).
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>>   -Dan
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dean Hildebrand [mailto:seattleplus at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:34 AM
>>>> To: nfsv4 at linux-nfs.org
>>>> Subject: nfsv41 mount semantics question
>>>>
>>>> At our weekly linux pNFS meeting yesterday the issue of how to
>>>> mount a
>>>> nfsv4.1 server arose.  We are looking for some clarification on
>>>> how to
>>>> proceed with the implementation.
>>>>
>>>> The first issue is with regards to whether we should use a new  
>>>> mount
>>>> type (e.g., '-t nfs41') or instead rely on the 'nfsvers' parameter
>>>> (e.g., '-t nfs nfsvers=4.1' or '-t nfs4 nfsvers=4.1').
>>>>
>>>> It was pointed out that the long term goal is to remove the current
>>>> 'nfs4' mount type and use only a single 'nfs' mount type and rely
>>>> on the
>>>> 'nfsvers' parameter to differentiate between versions.  Is this  
>>>> true?
>>>> (Note that the current nfs man page says the nfsvers parameter  
>>>> is not
>>>> supported for nfs4.) If so, should we implement the nfsv41 code to
>>>> use
>>>> the mount type 'nfs'
>>>> and a nfsvers=4.1 (or 41)?
>>>>
>>>> Another issue is if we move to using a single mount type of 'nfs',
>>>> what
>>>> should the default value of 'nfsvers' be?  I'm assuming that for  
>>>> the
>>>> near term it would be 'nfsvers=3'.  Would it depend on what is
>>>> compiled
>>>> into the kernel?
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, we just want to get the conversation started at this
>>>> point so
>>>> we can see what lies ahead.
>>>>
>>>> In summary, a few sample options:
>>>> '-t nfs nfsvers=[2,3,4,4.1]'
>>>> or
>>>> '-t [nfs,nfs4] nfsvers=[2,3] (for nfs) or nfsvers=[4,4.1] (for  
>>>> nfs4)'
>>>> or
>>>> '-t [nfs,nfs4,nfs41] nfsvers=[2,3]' - nfsvers for nfs type only
>>>>
>>>> Dean
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NFSv4 mailing list
>>>> NFSv4 at linux-nfs.org
>>>> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NFSv4 mailing list
>>>> NFSv4 at linux-nfs.org
>>>> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NFSv4 mailing list
>>> NFSv4 at linux-nfs.org
>>> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NFSv4 mailing list
> NFSv4 at linux-nfs.org
> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4