Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:12203 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3100 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!convex!news.duke.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!ra.nrl.navy.mil!sundance!cmetz From: cmetz@sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Craig Metz) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Whats wrong with Linux networking ??? Date: 9 Aug 1994 17:08:47 GMT Organization: Information Technology Division, Naval Research Laboratory Lines: 59 Message-ID: <328d6v$s0p@ra.nrl.navy.mil> References: <Cu107E.Mz3@curia.ucc.ie> <31vo1b$87t@quagga.ru.ac.za> <325760$rc9@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <Cu8CBr.Fx@calcite.rhyolite.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil In article <Cu8CBr.Fx@calcite.rhyolite.com>, Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote: >In article <325760$rc9@ra.nrl.navy.mil> cmetz@sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Craig Metz) writes: > >> ... >> The Linux NFS implementation, the client side especially, is very >>bare-bones. Because of this, it couldn't hold a candle to the 4.4BSD NFS >>implementation. I expect, however, that someone will implement improvements >>from 4.4BSD. >Rick M's Univ. of Guelph NFS implementation works fine, and is freely >redistributable, actively maintained, supports TCP as well as UDP, is >used in 4.4BSD, BSDI's BSD/386, and many other products, and works with >the freely available AMD. Except as a training excercise or the result >of a particularly bad case of Not-Invented-Here syndrome, why would >anyone want to write another NFS server? Vernon, for all your ranting and raving about the evils of Not- Invented-Here, you sure take an open mind to things that aren't BSD. UofG Linux Freely redistributable Yes Yes Actively maintained Yes Mostly TCP as well as UDP Yes Yes Supports AMD Yes Yes Used in 4.4BSD Yes No So, the 4.4BSD NFS has two things per your mentioning over Linux's NFS. First off, it's better maintained. The Linux code has been handed off a few times now and tends to get handed to extremely competent and extremely busy people, who generally can do no more than fix major bugs. Second, the UofG code is used in 4.4BSD. Apparently, this is absolutely essential to meet your approval. >If one were going to write an NFS-like-but-different protocol, say >something with better cache coherence and lock mechanisms, then it would >might sense to start from scratch. But something identical to the >current, old NFS protocol? Why? Vernon, why don't we all use Version 7 UNIX? Why is there a BSD in the first place? Even for the exercise itself, it is essential to do things over in order to see if it can be done better. Sometimes all that is gained in such a thing is insight into the problem. Sometimes room for improvement is found and the status quo is raised. The only thing that is certain is that not doing anything will certainly get you nowhere. Don't get me wrong, folks. I'm not going around saying that the Linux network code is the best on the planet or that the Linux NFS code is better than the UofG NFS code. What I'm saying is that, unlike what Vernon seems to be advocating, it should not be written off as an arrogant waste of time because it's (gasp) NOT BSD. It's different. It's new. It's decidedly not better. That doesn't mean it can't be improved. That doesn't mean it can't someday become something better than the BSD code (sacrilege!). You'll never find out if there's a better way unless somebody has the guts to go and try doing it differently.