Subject: RE: [NFS] Re: NFS version 4 at the University of Michigan

From: Peter Staubach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:41:41 -0700 (MST)

> 
> I'm not sure what you mean.  Why do you think NFSv4 is a lot
> more complex to deploy and manage than NFSv3?  Clearly, V4
> is more complex to implement and so right now it is very
> difficult or impossible to deploy it since the implementations,
> either haven't been released or are in flux and the protocol
> is still subject to some change.
> 
> However, if we look forward a bit, I expect implementations
> to mature and be released.  Why do you believe that it will
> be a lot more complex to deploy and manage?  What should 
> implementors do to reduce the problems that you see?  Is there
> something specific in the protocol that contributes to 
> this difficulty?
> 
> If this is just a question of objecting to additional complexity
> that provides you no benefit, then v4 is not going to be something 
> you want to run.  V3 is going to available for a long long time.  
> But if there is something specific that can be done to provide
> V4 features in a manner that doesn't add to the burden of those
> actually using it, then I'd like to hear about it.  
> 

It seems to me that NFS Version 4 makes much greater use of name
services and/or directory services than do previous versions of the NFS
protocol implementations.  For example, the string that identifies a
user will need to be mapped to something which makes sense for the
particular server and/or client implementation.  This may require
services which do not currently exist and may add to the administrative
issues.

		ps

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:52:02 -0600

> services which do not currently exist and may add to the administrative

Well, for the typical *nix client, the name service configuration
would be a pre-requisite for user login/authentication.  I would
imagine that most NFSv4 implementation would build off of that
configuration for the mapping of user/group identifiers.

The server is a different story.  For the existing general purpose NFS
server, this shouldn't be a problem either.  For the appliance side of
the market this may be problematic.  There hasn't been much disclosure
with respect to implementation choices in this area so it will be
interesting to see the results.

-- 
Spencer