Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

On 15 March 2013 11:11, Alfred Perlstein <bright_at_mu.org> wrote:

> 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.

Good news. and yes, it needs more work, but it doesn't preclude it
from having a cutover date set. Even if that date is something far in
the future, like 11.0.

Or we'll just end up with two NFS stacks for some undetermined amount of time.

> Sure, and how much NFS do you actually use and support exactly?

.. and exactly how much would that lend to this discussion?

I'm not arguing NFS technical details, I'm arguing project forward
thinking and planning. These don't need me to be waist deep in NFS, it
needs a broader view of how things may and may not go.

I lived through the pain of Linux having multiple NFS implementations
for precisely this reason. It was a clusterfsck of a nightmare of epic
proportions. We should avoid that.



adrian