[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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

Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/29/2009 10:10 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Steve Dickson <SteveD redhat com> wrote:
>>>> My main concern is with installer, installing from NFS shares from older
>>>> servers, say RHEL5.  How will anaconda handle mounting?  Will there be
>>>> odd errors that are difficult to figure out?  Has this been tested in
>>>> the anaconda environment at all?

>>> This issue is this... when the the F12 does a mount to a linux server
>>> and that linux server is *not* configured with a  "/ *(ro,fsid=0)"
>>> export, the mount will fail with ENOENT (or No such file or directory).
>>> If the server does have that export, things will work as expected...
>>> So my advice is to added that one line to your rhel5 server and every
>>> thing should as expected... or may even better... ;-) Another workaround
>>> is to added the '-o v3' mount options... would that be hard?

>> Why not just see the error and fall back and try v3 programatically
>> rather than forcing that upon unsuspecting users?  If someone
>> explicitly specifies v4, then sure, if that fails, it should fail.
>> But if they don't, we should be forgiving in what we do rather than
>> giving cryptic error messages.

> I looked into this... Having the kernel give a "different" kind of 
> error when the "V4 beginning mount routine failed" did not look 
> feasible  so figure it would be impossible to get through upstream

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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]