On 02/07/2012 13:05, Andrey Simonenko wrote: > On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:13:30PM +0100, Vincent Hoffman wrote: >> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote: >>> I haven't looked at Andrey's patch, but conceptually it sounds like >>> the best approach. As I understand it, the problem with replacing >>> mountd with nfse (at least in the FreeBSD source tree) is that nfse >>> is not 100% backwards compatible with /etc/exports and, as such, is >>> a POLA violation. >> Understood. Its far from a simple drop in replacement. > List of difference between "nfse -C ..." (compatible mode with mountd) > and mountd is given here: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2012-June/014554.html > > If we ignore absence of some obsolete options support and some command > line options, the rest of differences visible to a user will occur only > if one does not follow rules of exports(5) file format. > > The native mode of nfse (nfs.exports(5) file format) is different > than the logic of mountd, just because using existent exports(5) file > format it is impossible to specify export of not mounted file system, > it is impossible to specify all export settings for one file system in > one line, etc. > > Can you verify whether nfse compatible mode with mountd is really > compatible with exports(5) files on your systems using instructions > from this message (no installation or patching is required): > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2010-May/008421.html Its certainly compatible for me. I only have simple requirements though. (Basic NFS exports for servers to dump their backups onto.) nfse does look very good to me and I'll certainly be trying it in a VM. Any Ideas as to what would be needed to get this imported? VinceReceived on Mon Jul 02 2012 - 12:15:35 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:28 UTC