From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: Delays on "first" access to a NFS mount Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 23:36:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20070308043623.GA15814@fieldses.org> References: <20070307194418.97fee0ec.simon.peter@gmx.de> <20070307205016.GI26553@fieldses.org> <20070307211729.GO26553@fieldses.org> <20070307215406.GR26553@fieldses.org> <17903.16030.26119.464793@notabene.brown> <20070307232414.GZ26553@fieldses.org> <17903.20457.448449.509272@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, "Talpey, Thomas" , Simon Peter To: Neil Brown Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPAM0-0007xr-Dv for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:35:48 -0800 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214] helo=fieldses.org) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1HPAM2-0007X1-As for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:35:50 -0800 In-Reply-To: <17903.20457.448449.509272@notabene.brown> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 10:51:04AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > Well, if you export a different root filesystem to each diskless > client, or if you export /home to some places and /backup to others, > then you already have the potential for a different pseudo filesystem > for each client. My little hacky shell script above essentially > merges them all which might be OK, or might not. I think we want a single export tree, parts of which clients may or may not have permission to see, rather than try to support per-client namespaces. If nothing else, secinfo becomes a bit weird otherwise (do you tell the client that it can use auth_unix security for this filesystem, if actually using auth_unix might result in the client seeing a *different* filesystem?). > I was just looking at the RFC again and saw this in section 7.3: > > Based on the construction of the server's name space, it is possible > that multiple pseudo filesystems may exist. For example, > > /a pseudo filesystem > /a/b real filesystem > /a/b/c pseudo filesystem > /a/b/c/d real filesystem > > Each of the pseudo filesystems are considered separate entities and > therefore will have a unique fsid. Hah. > That adds a whole new dimension of complexity..... do we really want > to go there? We certainly aren't required to support every weird configuration that the RFC allows. --b. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs