* NFSv4
@ 2010-02-19 0:23 J.A. Magallón
2010-02-19 19:19 ` NFSv4 Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: J.A. Magallón @ 2010-02-19 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML
Hi all...
First of all, kudos for new nfs-utils. Now, nfs4 works automagically and
like a charm.
And now the hard part, some questions:
- I have read that nfs4 includes in the server the locking protocol, no
need for separate lockd. But in my servers, it seems it is still running:
root 2198 2 0 Feb18 ? 00:00:00 [nfsiod]
root 23501 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd4]
root 23502 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
root 23503 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
root 23504 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
root 23505 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
root 23506 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
root 23507 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
root 23508 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
root 23509 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
root 23500 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [lockd]
Is there any problem with it ? I suppose (correct me if I'm wrong)
that this kernel lockd will only serve for v2 or v3 mounts,
that locking for client nfs4 mounts will go through nfsd4.
Is that right ?
- Why is there only 1 instance of v4 daemon ?
- Is there any page describing the advantages of v4 ? I will have to
convince the department admin to activate v4 in his solaris boxen...;)
TIA
Notes: kernel is 2.6.33-rc8, nfs-utils are 1.2.2.
--
J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()ono!com> \ Software is like sex:
\ It's better when it's free
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: NFSv4
2010-02-19 0:23 NFSv4 J.A. Magallón
@ 2010-02-19 19:19 ` Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2010-02-19 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: J.A. Magallón; +Cc: LKML, linux-nfs
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 01:23 +0100, J.A. Magallón wrote:
> Hi all...
>
> First of all, kudos for new nfs-utils. Now, nfs4 works automagically and
> like a charm.
>
> And now the hard part, some questions:
>
> - I have read that nfs4 includes in the server the locking protocol, no
> need for separate lockd. But in my servers, it seems it is still running:
>
> root 2198 2 0 Feb18 ? 00:00:00 [nfsiod]
> root 23501 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd4]
> root 23502 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
> root 23503 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
> root 23504 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
> root 23505 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
> root 23506 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
> root 23507 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
> root 23508 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
> root 23509 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [nfsd]
> root 23500 2 0 01:01 ? 00:00:00 [lockd]
>
> Is there any problem with it ? I suppose (correct me if I'm wrong)
> that this kernel lockd will only serve for v2 or v3 mounts,
> that locking for client nfs4 mounts will go through nfsd4.
> Is that right ?
No. The client NFSv4 traffic goes through the ordinary 'nfsd' daemons.
There is no special locking manager for NFSv4, since POSIX locks are
part of the ordinary protocol.
I don't think that the NFS server will switch off lockd even if you do
specify that you only want to serve NFSv4.
> - Why is there only 1 instance of v4 daemon ?
The 'nfsd4' thread above is actually a workqueue that is used for
garbage-cleaning expired NFSv4 state. It isn't a server thread.
> - Is there any page describing the advantages of v4 ? I will have to
> convince the department admin to activate v4 in his solaris boxen...;)
One place to start is the NFSv4 design considerations. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2624
Cheers
Trond
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-19 19:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-19 0:23 NFSv4 J.A. Magallón
2010-02-19 19:19 ` NFSv4 Trond Myklebust
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox