Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 08:43:50 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: marek sal <marek_sal@wp.pl>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, milu@dat.pl, jyavenard@gmail.com Subject: Re: NFSv4 - how to set up at FreeBSD 8.1 ? Message-ID: <1229754447.119764.1294235030140.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <4d244e39.KoPcOoMaWed%2BH5De%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > > > ... one of the fundamental principals for NFSv2, 3 was a stateless > > server ... > > Only as long as UDP transport was used. Any NFS implementation that > used TCP for transport had thereby abandoned the stateless server > principle, since a TCP connection itself requires that state be > maintained on both ends. > You've seen the responses w.r.t. what stateless server referred to already. But you might find this "quirk" interesting... Early in the NFSv4 design, I suggested that handling of the server state (opens/locks/...) might be tied to the TCP connections (NFSv4 doesn't use UDP). Lets just say the idea "flew like a lead balloon". Lots of responses along the lines of "NFS should be separate for the RPC transport layer, etc. Then, several years later, they came up with Sessions for NFSv4.1, which does RPC transport management in a very NFSv4.1-specific way, including stuff like changing the RPC semantics to exactly-once... Although very different from what I had envisioned, in a sense Sessions does tie state handling (ordering of locking operations, for example) to RPC transport management as I currently understand it. rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1229754447.119764.1294235030140.JavaMail.root>