> On 20 Mar 2017, at 23:55, Toomas Soome <tsoome_at_me.com> wrote: > >> >> On 20. märts 2017, at 23:53, Rick Macklem <rmacklem_at_uoguelph.ca> wrote: >> >> Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 08:22:12PM +0200, Toomas Soome wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> The current boot code is building NFSv3, with preprocessor conditional OLD_NFSV2. Should NFSv2 code still be kept around or can we burn it? >>>> >>>> rgds, >>>> toomas >>> >>> I vote burn >>> >>> Bapt >> I would be happy to see NFSv2 go away. However, depending on how people configure >> their diskless root fs, they do end up using NFSv2 for their root fs. >> >> Does booting over NFSv3 affect this? >> >> I think the answer is no for a FreeBSD server (since the NFSv2 File Handle is the same as >> the NFSv3 one, except padded with 0 bytes to 32bytes long). >> However, there might be non-FreeBSD NFS servers where the NFSv2 file handle is different >> than the NFSv3 one and for that case, the user would need NFSv2 boot code (or >> reconfigure their root fs to use NFSv3). >> >> To be honest, I suspect few realize that they are using NFSv2 for their root fs. >> (They'd see it in a packet trace or via "nfsstat -m", but otherwise they probably >> think they are using NFSv3 for their root fs.) >> >> rick > > if they do not suspect, they most likely use v3 - due to simple fact that you have to rebuild loader to use NFSv2 - it is compile time option. > old systems, 8.x, still use/boot v2, and so do old linux. NetApp has discontinued support for v2, so we had to move this machines to use FreeBSD server and the day was saved. So, till these machines get upgraded/discontinued we have a problem. There are several solutions to this issue, but as long as it's a matter of getting rid for the sake of it, I would vote to keep it a while longer. dannyReceived on Tue Mar 21 2017 - 07:02:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:10 UTC