Re: [PATCH 0/7 V4] The NFSv4 only mounting daemon.

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 11:31:53AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/4/21 9:06 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 08:57:28AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> Personally I see this is the first step away from V3... 
> >>
> >> So what we don't need is all that RPC code, all the different mounting
> >> versions... no RPC code at all,  which also means no need for libtirpc... 
> >> That is a lot of code that goes away, which I think is a good thing.
> > 
> > libtirpc is a shared library, it'll still be loaded as long as anyone
> > needs it, and I'm not convinced we'll be able to get rid of all users.
> > 
> >> I never thought it was a good idea to have mountd process
> >> the v4 upcalls... I always thought it should be a different
> >> deamon... and now we have one.
> >>
> >> A simple daemon that only processes v4 upcalls.
> > 
> > I really do get the appeal, I've always liked the idea too.
> > 
> > I'm not sure it's bringing us a real practical advantage at this point,
> > compared to rpc.mountd, which can act either as a daemon that only
> > processes v4 upcalls or can do both, depending on how you start it.
> Right with some configuration changes... But I do think there is 
> value with have a package that will work right out of the box!
> 
> Boom! Install the package and you have a working v4 server
> with no configure changes... I do think there is value there.

Installing rpms and enabling systemd units is also a form of
configuration.

So maybe it comes down to whether we'd rather configure a v4-only server
with:

	dnf install nfsv4-only-server
	systemctl enable nfsv4-server

vs.

	edit some stuff in /etc/nfs.conf

My preference is for the second, but it's just a feeling, I don't really
have an objective argument either way.  Anyone else?

--b.