[Engine-devel] Advanced Nfs Options + NFSv4 GUI mockup

[Yaniv Kaul]

On 05/21/2012 04:09 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Doron Fediuck"<dfediuck at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:59:07 PM
>>
>> On 21/05/12 14:49, Einav Cohen wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Geert Jansen"<gjansen at redhat.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 2:44:09 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/21/2012 12:44 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> i was wondering why you have pulled out retrans and timeout? Are
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> the most important ones?
>>>>> Sorry - not sure I got you. Can you please clarify your question?
>>>> Sorry, I meant, why do retrans and timeout have their own input
>>>> boxes,
>>>> while the other options need to be set via the 'mount options'
>>>> box.
>>>> There's quite a few other important nfs options like tcp, rsize,
>>>> wsize,
>>>> and possibly nointr and hard. I was wondering why we took these
>>>> specific
>>>> two and gave them their separate boxes but not the other ones.
>>> Retrans and Timeout got separate boxes since they have separate
>>> parameters in the api (GUI was determined by api).
>>> Ayal - any reason for these specific two values having parameters
>>> of their own?
>>>
>> Reading some of the thread and reviews I can say that these 3 options
>> (version, retrans and timeo)
>> are advanced NFS features, which in most cases should not be used at
>> all. VDSM has very good defaults,
>> and in some specific cases there's a need to change these defaults.
>> Only in such case these options
>> should be modified.
> No question that vdsm has very good defaults and only rarely should they be modified.
> However, why not change everything via "mount options"? why do we have separate parameters specifically for "retrans" and "timeout" (in addition to "mount options")? As Geert said, we have also tcp, rsize, wsize, etc. So why "retrans" and "timeout" got parameters of their own and the others didn't (i.e. if there is a need to change tcp, rsize, wsize, the only way to do it is via the generic "mount options")?

While I agree they could be collapsed, practically, we've never heard of 
requests to any other parameters but those two, plus:
- hard mount instead of soft. Probably not going to happen soon. 
Requires a lot more changes everywhere.
- udp instead of tcp - bahhh.. We are in the 21st century, shouldn't be 
needed.

But there are other params we may need in the future, which is why we 
have the additional options field.
Y.

>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Geert
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Engine-devel mailing list
>>>> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Engine-devel mailing list
>>> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>>
>> --
>>
>> /d
>>
>> "Hi, my name is Any Key. Please don't hit me!"
>> _______________________________________________
>> Engine-devel mailing list
>> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel