Re: Linux On-Demand Network Access (LODNA)

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Peter Staubach wrote:

> Vlad C. wrote:
>
>> --- Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Please treat at greater length how your proposal
>>> differs from NFS.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
>>
>> 1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
>> NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which themselves
>> require root access on both server and client to
>> install)
>> 2) NFS by definition understands only its own network
>> protocol.
>> 3) NFS requires root privileges on the client to
>> mount. I'm not aware of a way to let normal users
>> mount an NFS partition other than listing it in the
>> client's fstab and adding the 'users' option... but
>> then changing fstab still requires root access.
>> 4) Users have to contact their sysadmin every time
>> they want to mount a different partition, a different
>> subdirectory of the same partition, or if they want to
>> change the local mountpoint, all because the partition
>> and mountpoint are hard-coded in fstab.
>>
>> On the other hand, I envision the following:
>>
>
> Please keep in mind that these are restrictions of the current NFS
> implementation and are not inherent in an NFS solution.
>
> The implied need for flexibility is being addressed by NFSv4 and the
> ability to understand multiple versions of protocols and multiple
> protocols is already resident in the system.  We could do some work
> to make it more transparent if desired, but it already works.
>
>    Thanx...
>
>       ps
>
>
Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something
ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for?

Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help
NFS?  Do you think that NFS should look at SFS and consider adopting
some of its features?

Hans