From: RJ Atkinson (rja@inet.org)
Date: 11/18/00-07:02:50 AM Z
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001118075827.00ba6720@10.30.15.2> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:02:50 -0500 From: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org> Subject: Re: open upgrade/downgrade, NT and UNIX From a user/operator perspective, it would be better to have limited capabilities on a new OS platform (that is broken wrt NFS) than to change things such that other OS platforms (that well work today and for many many years) might have increased chance of operational problems. I'm not sure how to translate the above into the gory details, so I won't try and leave that as an exercise to the smarter folks here. Generally speaking, NFSv4 looks gratuitously more complex than NFSv3 to me. From the sidelines, it appears this was driven by a desire to support an OS that doesn't really support the right kinds of semantics for NFS. Much though I prefer NFS to SMB, it really might have been better to leave that other OS with a somewhat limited NFS capability and keep the protocol simpler for the existing installed base. I really fear having to troubleshoot byzantine corner cases operationally that exist in NFSv4 but don't exist in NFSv3 (with existing OS platforms). Regards, Ran rja@inet.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:48:24 AM Z CST