On 08/08/2017 10:34 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 8/8/17 1:58 PM, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
On 08/08/2017 01:17 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
NSM should be accessible by TCP.  Why are we using UDP?

Is there a downstream need?


Yes, there is a downstream need for NSM.

Would prefer folks answer the question asked.  I didn't ask about NSM.
Note the lack of a question mark....

It very explicitly asked:

"Why are we using UDP? Is there a downstream need?"

AFAICT from grep'ing the NFS documents, NFSv3 NSM *MUST* support TCP.
We do not support NFSv2.  We should be using TCP.

Do we have a downstream need for NFSv2 support for NSM only?

If not, I'm going to drop this unsupported and frankly kludgy code.

NFSv3 supports UDP. We support NFSv3. Therefore we support UDP, for *all* of NFSv3. I will not approve any patch that removes UDP support from Ganesha. If the community prefers otherwise, so be it, but I believe UDP support is necessary.

Daniel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list
Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel

Reply via email to