From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262446AbVGMTKp (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:10:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262410AbVGMTIO (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:08:14 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]:46224 "EHLO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262492AbVGMTHL (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:07:11 -0400 Message-ID: <42D5665D.9070706@namesys.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:07:09 -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> <42D55C75.4010307@namesys.com> <42D561AB.3060002@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <42D561AB.3060002@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: > 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 > > I would encourage you to look at SFS..... it fixes a lot, making adding what Vlad asks for reasonable.