[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.2.18pre4
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:

> Better asK: What can _we_ do to assure Alan that NFS is up to snuff?

even if it does suck - so what? it can't possibly suck as much as
current stock NFS. :) but the general view is that 2.2 with patches
is quite useable for NFS serving and as client.

> How can we help along?

the NFS patches (which are a backport of stock 2.4, which descended
from the original 2.2 NFS patches) are now too large and too
different from stock 2.2 to realistically be split up into small
little "this fixes this exact problem". The code is now so far ahead
of stock 2.2 that it is an effective rewrite (and with new, but
optional, NFSv3 client and server and NFS client over TCP code added

alan seems to {want,prefer} small incremental/'obvious fix' patches.
but that isn't practically possible anymore. It would mean the NFS
guys would effectively have to redo the entire development cycle of
code they have written over the last year.

In lieu of a technical argument such as small patches, the only other
arguments are those based on the experiences of people who have tried
to get linux to work reliably as an NFS server and even client. I've
tried to cover those in a previous email, see:
Message-ID: <>

So it is now at the stage where we either:

1. bite the bullet and sync stock nfs with


2. accept that stock 2.2 will never have decent NFS server
functionality, and wait for 2.4 to get stable.

we await 2.219pre1 with much curiosity. :)

Paul Jakma
PGP5 key:
Where you stand depends on where you sit.
-- Rufus Miles, HEW

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.118 / U:25.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site