From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261927AbVGMS2q (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:28:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262255AbVGMS0J (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:26:09 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]:50085 "EHLO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261927AbVGMSYx (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:24:53 -0400 Message-ID: <42D55C75.4010307@namesys.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:24:53 -0700 From: Hans Reiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Staubach CC: "Vlad C." , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux On-Demand Network Access (LODNA) References: <20050712234425.55899.qmail@web54409.mail.yahoo.com> <42D5340A.7060002@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <42D5340A.7060002@redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Peter Staubach wrote: > Vlad C. wrote: > >> --- Hans Reiser 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