Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Rick Macklem
Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 15.03.2013 15:01, Eggert, Lars wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and > > locking for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server > > that ran > > -STABLE. > > > > When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client,

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Rick Macklem
Peter Wemm wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote: > >> On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote: > >> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote: > >> >> Hi Rick, all, > >> >> > >> >> is there

kmod linking is very strange

2013-03-15 Thread Godfrey Van der Linden
G'day, All. First post so please be gentle ;-). Are the barracudas here? Summary: Module link-elf will link against static symbols and will fail if the kernel is not compiled with DDB or the required MODULE_DEPEND has been stripped of local symbols, see nm -g miibus.ko. I propose that we add a

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Rick Macklem
Freddie Cash wrote: > Isn't the general process (or at least past pattern) to: > - have 1 release cycle with just the old code (aka 8.x with oldNFS) > - have 1 release cycle with old and new code, default to old (aka 9.x > with oldNFS + newNFS) Actually, your numbering is out by one. 7.x - old only

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Peter Wemm
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote: >> On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote: >> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote: >> >> Hi Rick, all, >> >> >> >> is there a plan to decide for one NFS imp

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Rick Macklem
John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote: > > On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote: > > >> Hi Rick, all, > > >> > > >> is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD > > >

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Rick Macklem
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 3/15/13 10:55 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein 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 th

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread John Baldwin
On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote: > >> Hi Rick, all, > >> > >> is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0, > >> or to keep both around ind

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Freddie Cash
Isn't the general process (or at least past pattern) to: - have 1 release cycle with just the old code (aka 8.x with oldNFS) - have 1 release cycle with old and new code, default to old (aka 9.x with oldNFS + newNFS) - have 1 release cycle with old and new code, default to new (aka 10.x with

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 15 March 2013 11:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > People in my org have been working with NFS and reporting issues for the > past year. I'm quite certain that Doug White has reported issues due to > missing certain caching features of the old code. > > This is not indicative that newNFS is bad,

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Alfred Perlstein
On 3/15/13 10:55 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein 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 amus

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein 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 suns

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Alfred Perlstein
On 3/15/13 8:24 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote: On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote: Hi Rick, all, is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0, or to keep both around indefinately? I'm talking about: oldNF

Re: reservation of n, n (3) failed

2013-03-15 Thread Waitman Gobble
John Baldwin wrote .. > On Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:41:04 am Waitman Gobble wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I swapped out the CPU on this machine today, I don't recall seeing these > > messages > previously: > > > > acpi0: reservation of 0, a (3) failed > > acpi0: reservation of 10, bfcd0

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Andre Oppermann
On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote: On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote: Hi Rick, all, is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0, or to keep both around indefinately? I'm talking about: oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFS

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread John Baldwin
On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote: > Hi Rick, all, > > is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0, > or to keep both around indefinately? > > I'm talking about: > oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3 > newNFS in sys/fs/{

Re: reservation of n, n (3) failed

2013-03-15 Thread John Baldwin
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:41:04 am Waitman Gobble wrote: > > Hi, > > I swapped out the CPU on this machine today, I don't recall seeing these > messages previously: > > acpi0: reservation of 0, a (3) failed > acpi0: reservation of 10, bfcd (3) failed You can ignore those. acpi

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Andre Oppermann
On 15.03.2013 15:01, Eggert, Lars wrote: Hi, this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and locking for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server that ran -STABLE. When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client, which mounted /usr/ports and /usr/local, as well as

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Rick Macklem
Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and > locking for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server > that ran -STABLE. > > When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client, which mounted /usr/ports and > /usr/local, as well as the locat

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Eggert, Lars
Hi, this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and locking for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server that ran -STABLE. When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client, which mounted /usr/ports and /usr/local, as well as the location of the respective sqlite data

Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Rick Macklem
Andre Oppermann wrote: > Hi Rick, all, > > is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0, > or to keep both around indefinately? > > I'm talking about: > oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3 > newNFS in sys/fs/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3+NFSv4

NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

2013-03-15 Thread Andre Oppermann
Hi Rick, all, is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0, or to keep both around indefinately? I'm talking about: oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3 newNFS in sys/fs/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3+NFSv4 NewNFS supports newer NFS stan