Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:55:04 -0700
From:      Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
Cc:        rmacklem@uoguelph.ca, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?
Message-ID:  <CAJ-Vmo=4Cp07KNjNoFTJv8C6AcSVkGGKwPAeiLSia%2BmSh-uvqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51435271.2040402@mu.org>
References:  <514324E8.30209@freebsd.org> <201303150946.29100.jhb@freebsd.org> <51433D30.30405@freebsd.org> <51435271.2040402@mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> wrote:

> Finally, I think it is really premature to declare a sunset for the oldnfs
> until the users are gushing with approval over the new system.

The flipside to this argument (and coming from you is kind of amusing
:-) is that without any kind of sunset time stated, companies won't
push back or be forced to migrate, so they may stick with oldnfs for
years to come.

It sounds like your employer has made that choice, at least for the
short term. Nothing in your email stated that you had filed bugs (but
I'm sure you have), nor that you were dedicating any resources to help
Rick and others iron out the bugs in NFSv4.

So I'm all for sunsetting oldnfs by 10.x, and lighting a fire up
peoples' asses to realise that stuff _needs_ to get debugged before
10.0 is cut, or they're going to be in for an even rougher ride in the
future.



adrian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=4Cp07KNjNoFTJv8C6AcSVkGGKwPAeiLSia%2BmSh-uvqw>