From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262493AbVGMTdo (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:33:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262395AbVGMSte (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:49:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:65159 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262340AbVGMSsX (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:48:23 -0400 Message-ID: <42D561AB.3060002@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:47:07 -0400 From: Peter Staubach User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans Reiser 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> <42D55C75.4010307@namesys.com> In-Reply-To: <42D55C75.4010307@namesys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hans Reiser wrote: >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? > I think that connecting to required data could be more easily done than currently. I don't know about allowing file systems to be mounted without some form of control or resource utilization controls however. I do agree that the entire user experience associated with using and trying to administrate an NFS network could stand a good, long, hard look. Traditional tools such as the automounter were nice 15 years ago, but have not evolved with the world, nor have the rest of the system tools for monitoring and managing NFS clients and servers. I could definitely envision better ways to handle things. In the past, many of the arguments against making things better were security related. There has been strong (relative term) security available to NFS implementations since 1997, but many vendors have not implemented it and many customers found it difficult to deploy because the underlying tools were very difficult to deploy. Many of the vendors are now implementing the security framework, but more work is required on the underlying security mechanisms, making them easier to deploy. With proper security, usable monitoring and management tools, and flexible resource controls, then I wouldn't see why NFS mounts should be anything special. Thanx... ps