[rhelv6-beta-list] Does the NFS install with ISO images still work?

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Justin Clift <justin at salasaga.org> wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 09:42 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I also recommend very strongly against the NFS installation approach.
>
> Removing options that offer alternative functionality, and that have already
> been working (for years) isn't that good.
>
> Some people like NFS, and for many situations it's very easy to configure
> and have running.
>
> NFS also has a *large* amount of development work going into it's version
> 4.1 revision, allowing things like parallel NFS (multiple, + redundant host
> servers), many optimisations, and security improvements.
>
> Some of this functionality can be done through HTTP.  And HTTP is an easy
> solution for people to set up if they're familiar with it.
>
> But, RHEL is an enterprise distribution.  Enterprise *nix staff are not all
> familiar with HTTP, but many of them are familiar with NFS due to it's long
> history.
>
> As you've also pointed out, enterprises commonly deploy NAS solutions like
> NetApp for shared storage.  NetApp filers serve over NFS (by default), CIFS
> (with appropriate licensing), iSCSI (with appropriate licensing), and only
> recently (again with licensing) over HTTP.
>
> These NetApp filers are expensive and *optimised* for NFS (with higher
> performance than most chunky *nix boxes :/ ).  Use of NFS in these
> enterprises is increasing if anything because it works well. ;)
>
> Anyway, while I don't think your preference for HTTP is wrong, I do think
> trying to remove someone else's preference is.
>
> Regards and best wishes,
>
> Justin Clift

You've a good point. I wasn't suggesting "remove NFS compatibility
from the software", just "avoid using it for the clients".