From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shanker Balan Subject: Re: 1279 mounts Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:27:11 +0530 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20020426055710.GA3797@exocore.com> References: <20020425162106.A30736@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Reply-To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from premium.exocore.com ([203.197.173.224]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 170yjJ-0008E4-00 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:57:13 -0700 Received: from godzilla.exocore.com (cix.exocore.com [202.71.153.165]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by premium.exocore.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3Q5v1U08918 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:27:01 +0530 To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20020425162106.A30736@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hello: Pete Zaitcev wrote, > I updated my patch that allows to mount unholy numbers of volumes. > The old version was for 2.4.9 and did not apply anymore. I split the > unnamed majors patch and the NFS patch. Also, CONFIG_ option is gone, > because it made the code ugly. > > Majors part: > http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-unmaj.diff > NFS part: > http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/linux-2.4.19-pre7-nores.diff > Userland for NFS: > http://people.redhat.com/zaitcev/linux/util-linux-2.11q-nores1.diff > Is anyone actually interested? Random people periodically ask me for > patches, get them and disappear into the void. Heh, one of them would be me! :-D > I hear nothing good or bad (well, nothing since Trond reviewed it > several months ago, and also someone found a conflict with NFS server > code, since fixed). The requirement for such a large number of mounts does not exist for me anymore so the patches never went into the production environment for me. > I am thinking about submitting, but if users do not ask, why add extra > bloat and negotiate with LANANA... IMHO, the Linux kernel's inability to handle mounts > 256 mounts is a deficiency. AFAIK, FreeBSD does not have this problem. I would really appreciate it if these patches made it into the kernel so that I wont be surprised to realize that Linux cant do more than 256 mounts out of the box the next time I try it. Zaitcev, thanx for making those patches available in the first place. Oh, will you be rolling the user land patches to util-linux to the RedHat RPMS? -- Shanu -- Workers of the world, arise! You have nothing to lose but your chairs. _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs