From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: Configuration for NFSv3 only? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:52:15 -0400 Message-ID: <42E631FF.3050005@redhat.com> References: <20050725223530.80613.qmail@web33915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DxOy3-0007u7-Sc for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:55:31 -0700 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1DxOy3-0003fH-NT for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:55:32 -0700 To: Bill Johnstone In-Reply-To: <20050725223530.80613.qmail@web33915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Bill Johnstone wrote: >--- Peter Staubach wrote: > > > >>The answer to this question is that the portmapper protocol is >>completely >>separate from the NFS and related protocols such as nlockmgr and >>mountd. >> >>There are newer versions of the protocol, 10000, which are now called >> >>rpcbind. >> >>But, the short answer, is that portmapper, version 2, is fine for >>these >>purposes. >> >> > >Does this separation of versions also apply to "status"? The version >given for that both on the client and server sides is "1". > >Is that OK for NFSv3 operation? > Hi. Yes, version 1 for the status protocol is also fine and is not related to the version of NFS, either 2 or 3, being used. The NFS version 4 protocol is self contained and does not use either the nlockmgr (network lock manager), the mount, or the status protocols as part of the support required for it. A little bit of information -- NFS version 2 uses either MOUNT versions 1 or 2. The difference between MOUNT version 1 and MOUNT version 2 is the addition of an operation to retrieve POSIX pathconf information. NFS version 2 uses either NLOCKMGR versions 1 or 3. The difference between versions 1 and 3 is the addition of some primitives for file sharing, ala DOS. NFS version 3 uses MOUNT version 3. This version of the MOUNT protocol is similar to the MOUNT version 1 protocol, but returns NFS version 3 file handles instead of NFS version 2 file handles. NFS version 3 uses NLOCKMGR version 4. This version of the NLOCKMGR protocol is similar to the NLOCKMGR version 3 protocol, but assumes that the owner handle encapsulates an NFS version 3 file handle instead of an NFS version 2 filehandle. You might also notice two versions of a protocol called NFS_ACL. This protocol was designed in order to handle POSIX style ACLs. It also contains some extensions to handle generalized extended attributes. In the marketplace, certain implementations of NFS version 2 will also support NFS_ACL version 2. Certain implementations of NFS version 3 will also support NFS_ACL version 3. The corresponding version of NFS uses the corresponding version of the NFS_ACL protocol. There is support for the NFS_ACL version 3 protocol available in some versions of Linux. -- I hope that this is helpful. ps ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs