current Trond NFS patch for 2.2.22?

current Trond NFS patch for 2.2.22?

[Scott McDermott]

yes some of us are still using 2.2

if I use 2.2.22 + Trond's linux-2.2.21-NFS.dif am I current? It applies
fine (minus a cast which was already included)

are there any other previous patches I need?

also I recall hearing about stalling, and some fixes floating
around...is that just 2.4, do I need to worry about that too?


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: current Trond NFS patch for 2.2.22?

[Trond Myklebust]

>>>>> " " == Scott McDermott <mcdermot@questra.com> writes:

     > yes some of us are still using 2.2 if I use 2.2.22 + Trond's
     > linux-2.2.21-NFS.dif am I current? It applies fine (minus a
     > cast which was already included)

Hardly current, but definitely up to the limits of which I'm prepared
to go with 2.2.x 8-)

     > are there any other previous patches I need?

In principle not.

     > also I recall hearing about stalling, and some fixes floating
     > around...is that just 2.4, do I need to worry about that too?

That is with the latest 2.4 (and 2.5) pre-kernels.

Cheers,
  Trond


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: current Trond NFS patch for 2.2.22?

[Scott McDermott]

Trond Myklebust on Tue  8/10 01:56 +0200:
> >>>>> " " == Scott McDermott <mcdermot@questra.com> writes:

what's this empty string? where does it get its value? my MUA set up
improperly or something?

>      > yes some of us are still using 2.2 if I use 2.2.22 + Trond's
>      > linux-2.2.21-NFS.dif am I current? It applies fine (minus a
>      > cast which was already included)
> 
> Hardly current, but definitely up to the limits of which I'm prepared
> to go with 2.2.x 8-)

biggest thing stopping me from upgrading the servers to 2.4 is knowing
that everyone will get stale handles, this will be very hard to manage
logistically, too many disparate political units with clients mounting
off it.  You said before that there is server code to handle old 2.2
cookies but I've heard otherwise from posts on the list and 2.2 works
too well for us right now to risk this.  I really should get around to
testing this though.  Truth is, 2.2 works well for our needs, I don't
really care to upgrade until we get something worthwhile like RPCSEC and
ACL support.

your patches affect client only though right?

Our servers are running 2.2.18pre19 with UDP rsize fix since forever,
with no problems whatever.


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Re: current Trond NFS patch for 2.2.22?

[Trond Myklebust]

>>>>> " " == Scott McDermott <mcdermot@questra.com> writes:

     > Trond Myklebust on Tue 8/10 01:56 +0200:
    >> >>>>> " " == Scott McDermott <mcdermot@questra.com> writes:

     > what's this empty string? where does it get its value? my MUA
     > set up improperly or something?

Nah. Xemacs wants to play games when formatting. I just hate having
the thing indent with

   Scott McDermott> blah...

     > biggest thing stopping me from upgrading the servers to 2.4 is
     > knowing that everyone will get stale handles, this will be very
     > hard to manage logistically, too many disparate political units
     > with clients mounting off it.  You said before that there is
     > server code to handle old 2.2 cookies but I've heard otherwise
     > from posts on the list and 2.2 works too well for us right now
     > to risk this.  I really should get around to testing this
     > though.  Truth is, 2.2 works well for our needs, I don't really
     > care to upgrade until we get something worthwhile like RPCSEC
     > and ACL support.

Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, however I wanted to make the point
that 2.2.x is a 'critical fixes only' kernel. Otherwise I'm not
touching it...

Cheers,
  Trond


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs