From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [pnfs] [RFC 0/4] nfs-utils: nfsd support for minor version Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:35:36 -0400 Message-ID: <49E87798.8090308@RedHat.com> References: <49E2F6E4.2080501@panasas.com> <49E769C5.6010902@RedHat.com> <49E7721E.2070601@panasas.com> <49E7753C.4010300@RedHat.com> <20090416182313.GE450@fieldses.org> <49E7809B.2020002@RedHat.com> <20090416191826.GC1145@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Benny Halevy , NFS list , pNFS Mailing List To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:41252 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760839AbZDQMkb (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:40:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090416191826.GC1145@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: >> I do get your point, but as we did with the initial v4 support, >> having the support on by default and then having away to turn it >> off is the correct approach... IMHO... > > I'd prefer it be off by default, for the obvious safety reasons. (It's > under rapid development and particularly likely to have bugs). The only > reason we had it on by default before was that we didn't add the > switching mechanism early enough. (Well, and because we could keep it > off in the config. But I'd rather be able to ship users a kernel that > supports 4.1 and give them the option of turning it on at runtime, than > make them build a new kernel.) I agree with not making people recompile kernels, which is the whole purpose behind the Fedora repos, but do I think you might be a bit too cautious with exposing the technology. One, I've been running the kernels with everything enabled for a while now with no problems whatsoever... A few scary looking warnings now and then but nothing major. I also spent the majority of my time at Connectathon this years testing with kernel that were fully enabled. Not one problem WRT regression testing. Plus there is no better way to expose regression problems (early on) than to enable the code.. IMHO... Second, its my understanding that clients have to explicitly ask for 4.1 support. Are there any client out there that default to 4.1 support? I would think not since there is only one client out there that defaults to V4.0. If there is a client that defaults to 4.1, then we will a knob to turn that support off. Finally, with rpc.nfsd the precedence has already been set that we disable versions, not enabled them. For us to start enabling versions with rpc.nfsd we would have to come up with another command line flags (similar to Benny's patch). This means we would have one flag that enables versions and another that would disable them... talk about confusion... and that's just not right... IMHO.... So I say, lets stay with the precedence that was already set, enable the support by default but have a way to disable it... steved.