*BSD News Article 96737


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!uunet!in3.uu.net!194.87.0.28!demos!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!netapp.com!netapp.com!not-for-mail
From: guy@netapp.com (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: 2.2.2 and NFS v3 ?
Date: 2 Jun 1997 15:18:41 -0700
Organization: Network Appliance
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <5mvgs1$3bi@tooting.netapp.com>
References: <01bc6d3d$06b2b920$0a00a8c0@kahuna> <5mu6fc$n4a@ui-gate.utell.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tooting.netapp.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:42060

Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org, brian@utell.co.uk> wrote:
>I know next to nothing about it, but I believe it supports connection
>oriented requests and does locking properly.

...neither of which have anything to do with NFS V3, of course; NFS V2
"supports connection-oriented requests" in the sense that it can run
over TCP just as V3 can, and neither NFS V2 nor NFS V3 "do locking" -
locking is done by a separate protocol.

I.e., presumably the latter two are advantages of more recent versions
of the NFS implementation in FreeBSD; "NFS V3" isn't an implementation,
it's a protocol that some NFS implementations support.

To answer the original poster's:

The NFS V3 spec is RFC 1813 (the NFS V2 spec is RFC 1094).

	http://ds.internic.net/ds/dspg0intdoc.html

is a URL for a page that can lead you to RFCs.

A PostScript version of the USENIX paper "NFS Version 3 Design and
Implementation" can be found at

	http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/ftp/NFSv3_Rev_3.eps

(it is *NOT* a NetApp paper - two of its six authors currently work at
NetApp, although only one of them worked there when they did the paper),
and it discusses some of the advantages of the NFS V3 protocol over the
NFS V2 protocol.  Which of the new NFS V3 features that provide these
advantages are implemented by which releases of FreeBSD is another
matter.
-- 
Reply, or follow up, but don't do both, please.

postmaster@localhost
postmaster@127.0.0.1