Buyer Beware: A Major Change in NFS is about to happen

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 09/30/2009 04:09 AM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> I don't really understand this reason.  When you get a mount fail, why
>> not try v3?  It doesn't matter whether the kernel gives a different
>> kind of error or not.
>
> The error that is returned is ENOENT which is fatal error because
> it means the remote directory does not exist... and I'm not sure it
> would be good to continue flood the network with mounts requests
> (I'm thinking about autofs mount storms) for directories that may
> or may not be there...

Are mount requests really that resource intensive?  If so, perhaps 
caching mount attempt results and stepping back the protocol would be 
appropriate.

Really though, switching V4 on without an auto-fallback to V3 seems like 
a really bad change.  Shouldn't there be at least one transitional 
Fedora release where auto-fallback happens, perhaps with a syslog notice?

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc at redhat.com