Re: 4.1 no-pnfs mount option?

["Matt W. Benjamin" <matt@linuxbox.com>]

Hi,

----- "Trond Myklebust" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote:

> "Why would an administrator never want to do this?" is not a helpful
> question.
> 
> A more useful question is "what reason would you possibly have for
> overriding the server's request that you do pNFS when your client has
> pNFS support?" What makes pNFS so special that we must allow
> administrators to do this on a per-mount basis?

Well, I phrased my question the other way because I suspect such cases will be found, but I may not have found all of them.  

Some thoughts on why I might wish to take a hand in the decision:

1. the client doing pnfs might behave badly due to a misconfiguration or outage, yet behave acceptably using ordinary nfsv4?
2. restricting the client to ordinary nfsv4 might be desirable for non-developer troubleshooting or other configuration work?

I apologize if neither is compelling.

> 
> Throwing more and more knobs into the kernel is easy. The difficult
> bit
> is to figure out which are useful knobs, and that is why I want real
> use
> cases... 
> 
> Trond
> 

Matt

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309