lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux On-Demand Network Access (LODNA)
    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
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-07-13 20:40    [W:0.022 / U:2.632 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site