Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

On 3/15/13 10:55 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein <bright_at_mu.org> wrote:
>
>> Finally, I think it is really premature to declare a sunset for the oldnfs
>> until the users are gushing with approval over the new system.
> The flipside to this argument (and coming from you is kind of amusing
> :-) is that without any kind of sunset time stated, companies won't
> push back or be forced to migrate, so they may stick with oldnfs for
> years to come.

I have never in my entire career pushed for "breaking users in the 
interest of forward progress."


>
> It sounds like your employer has made that choice, at least for the
> short term. Nothing in your email stated that you had filed bugs (but
> I'm sure you have), nor that you were dedicating any resources to help
> Rick and others iron out the bugs in NFSv4.

People in my org have been working with NFS and reporting issues for the 
past year.  I'm quite certain that Doug White has reported issues due to 
missing certain caching features of the old code.

This is not indicative that newNFS is bad, just that it still needs some 
work.

>
> So I'm all for sunsetting oldnfs by 10.x, and lighting a fire up
> peoples' asses to realise that stuff _needs_ to get debugged before
> 10.0 is cut, or they're going to be in for an even rougher ride in the
> future.
>
>
Sure, and how much NFS do you actually use and support exactly?

-Alfred