Debian Bug report logs - #35743
knfs: needs to replace nfs-server

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: clameter@debian.org

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: knfs: needs to replace nfs-server

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 04:34:36 -0700

Package: knfs
Version: 1.2-1

Mow that nfs-server had been forked out of the netstd package it might be
wise to have knfd replace nfs-server rather than depend on in. The
k-prefixes could be removed now. The user can choose the kind of nfs
services by installing the appropriate package. 

-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Kernel Version: Linux cyrix200 2.2.5-ac3 #7 Thu Apr 1 20:35:20 PST 1999 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages knfs depends on:
pi  nfs-server      2.2beta37-1    User space NFS server.
ii  libc6           2.1.1-0.1      GNU C Library: shared libraries

Message #10 received at 35743@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anders Hammarquist <iko@cd.chalmers.se>

To: clameter@debian.org, 35743@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#35743: knfs: needs to replace nfs-server

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 16:13:48 +0200

> Mow that nfs-server had been forked out of the netstd package it might be
> wise to have knfd replace nfs-server rather than depend on in. The
> k-prefixes could be removed now. The user can choose the kind of nfs
> services by installing the appropriate package. 

I've been thinking about doing this, however, some have commented that
they want to have both installed (for being able to boot a 2.0 kernel etc).

Now that 2.2 is out, this may be less of a concern though. So I'm
soliciting opinions... Should knfs replace nfs-server?

/Anders

-- 
 -- Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Anders Hammarquist                                  | iko@cd.chalmers.se
Physics student                                     | Hem: +46 31 47 69 27
Chalmers University of Technology, G|teborg, Sweden | Mob: +46 707 27 86 87

Message #15 received at 35743@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Samuel Tardieu <sam@debian.org>

To: Anders Hammarquist <iko@cd.chalmers.se>

Cc: clameter@debian.org, 35743@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#35743: knfs: needs to replace nfs-server

Date: 08 Apr 1999 18:24:58 +0200

>>>>> "Anders" == Anders Hammarquist <iko@cd.chalmers.se> writes:

Anders> Now that 2.2 is out, this may be less of a concern though. So
Anders> I'm soliciting opinions... Should knfs replace nfs-server?

I've discussed this topic with someone doing heavy NFS operations
between Linux machines, and he told me that knfs was much faster than
nfsd. Any reason not to include both, and select automatically one or
the other depending on the kernel version?

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@debian.org

Message #20 received at 35743@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adrian Bridgett <adrian.bridgett@zetnet.co.uk>

To: Samuel Tardieu <sam@debian.org>, 35743@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Anders Hammarquist <iko@cd.chalmers.se>, clameter@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#35743: knfs: needs to replace nfs-server

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:14:51 +0100

On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 06:24:58PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> >>>>> "Anders" == Anders Hammarquist <iko@cd.chalmers.se> writes:
> 
> Anders> Now that 2.2 is out, this may be less of a concern though. So
> Anders> I'm soliciting opinions... Should knfs replace nfs-server?
> 
> I've discussed this topic with someone doing heavy NFS operations
> between Linux machines, and he told me that knfs was much faster than
> nfsd. Any reason not to include both, and select automatically one or
> the other depending on the kernel version?

I'd like to be able to pick a bit more selectively than that - i.e. when
running a 2.2 kernel sometimes you may want to run the user-space nfsd (e.g.
some bug in knfsd but not in unfsd).

Could netbase provide a /etc/init.d/nfs which looks at the kernel version,
which (if either) of the two packages is installed and if unfsd is preffered?

If the user prefers unfsd, but only has knfsd installed then if they run a
2.0 kernel they get no nfs, and if they run a 2.2 kernel they get unfsd
(note - unfsd is the _preferred_ choice - not the only one).

Cheers

Adrian (happy to try out any packages at work (but not until thursday 15th)

email: adrian.bridgett@zetnet.co.uk, http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett
Windows NT - Unix in beta-testing.   PGP key available on public key servers
Avoid tiresome goat sacrifices  -=-  use Debian Linux http://www.debian.org

Message #25 received at 35743@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anders Hammarquist <iko@cd.chalmers.se>

To: adrian.bridgett@zetnet.co.uk

Cc: Samuel Tardieu <sam@debian.org>, 35743@bugs.debian.org, clameter@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#35743: knfs: needs to replace nfs-server

Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 17:42:35 +0200

> On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 06:24:58PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> > >>>>> "Anders" == Anders Hammarquist <iko@cd.chalmers.se> writes:
> > 
> > Anders> Now that 2.2 is out, this may be less of a concern though. So
> > Anders> I'm soliciting opinions... Should knfs replace nfs-server?
> > 
> > I've discussed this topic with someone doing heavy NFS operations
> > between Linux machines, and he told me that knfs was much faster than
> > nfsd. Any reason not to include both, and select automatically one or
> > the other depending on the kernel version?
> 
> I'd like to be able to pick a bit more selectively than that - i.e. when
> running a 2.2 kernel sometimes you may want to run the user-space nfsd (e.g.
> some bug in knfsd but not in unfsd).
> 
> Could netbase provide a /etc/init.d/nfs which looks at the kernel version,
> which (if either) of the two packages is installed and if unfsd is preffered?
> 
> If the user prefers unfsd, but only has knfsd installed then if they run a
> 2.0 kernel they get no nfs, and if they run a 2.2 kernel they get unfsd
> (note - unfsd is the _preferred_ choice - not the only one).

The way it works now (admittedly a hack) is that if you install the knfs
package, it will attempt to run. If your kernel doesn't have nfs server
support compiled in, it will run unfsd instead. So essentially, by
installing knfs, you are saying that your prefered choice is knfs.
(There are ways to tweak it to always run unfsd even if knfs is installed.)

There are some problems with this though. First, knfs' and unfs' feature
sets don't overlap completely, and if you are depending on a feature
that is only available in one of them, you may be in for surprises.
Second, there are some coordination issuse that need to be taken care of.

Hmm, thinking a bit, the right thing would probably be to use alternatives (can you have alternativs for a conffile?)

/Anders

-- 
 -- Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Anders Hammarquist                                  | iko@cd.chalmers.se
Physics student                                     | Hem: +46 31 47 69 27
Chalmers University of Technology, G|teborg, Sweden | Mob: +46 707 27 86 87

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.