Linux 6.10 Is Disabling NFS v2 Client Support By Default

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Linux 6.10 Is Disabling NFS v2 Client Support By Default

Following the NFS server changes from a few days ago for Linux 6.10 that brought optimizations and prepping for the new "nfsdctl" utility, the Network File System client changes have been submitted and merged for this new kernel...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.10-NFS-Client

[timofonic]

Errata

NFS v2 dates back to 1989 while NFS v3 and NFS v3 are both over two decades old already and common place.

[Chugworth]

It's probably about time to retire NFS altogether. Security is practically nonexistent, and I really wouldn't recommend it for hardly anything. The only thing I still use it for is to share the update cache folder in Arch among several computers.

A good replacement would be nice. SMB is okay, but it's kind of clunky and I wish it could use SSH keys rather than passwords. SSHFS is almost great since it's based on SSH and has simple communication design using just one port. It would be my ideal choice if only it could handle extended attributes.

[ol3geezer]

It's probably about time to retire NFS altogether. Security is practically nonexistent, and I really wouldn't recommend it for hardly anything. The only thing I still use it for is to share the update cache folder in Arch among several computers.

A good replacement would be nice. SMB is okay, but it's kind of clunky and I wish it could use SSH keys rather than passwords. SSHFS is almost great since it's based on SSH and has simple communication design using just one port. It would be my ideal choice if only it could handle extended attributes.

i was going to disagree at first, but then i thought about it for 2 seconds longer and yea, nfs is pretty terrible. im not sure it has too many places anymore, although im sure some antiquated shops still have it set up with nfs

[timofonic]

It's probably about time to retire NFS altogether. Security is practically nonexistent, and I really wouldn't recommend it for hardly anything. The only thing I still use it for is to share the update cache folder in Arch among several computers. A good replacement would be nice. SMB is okay, but it's kind of clunky and I wish it could use SSH keys rather than passwords. SSHFS is almost great since it's based on SSH and has simple communication design using just one port. It would be my ideal choice if only it could handle extended attributes.

Are you sure NFSv4+ is so "bad"? It's quite used out there. SSHFS is good for quick and dirty stuff, but not so featured.

[CommunityMember]

It's probably about time to retire NFS altogether. Security is practically nonexistent

NFSv4 when using kerberos is reasonably secure. Sure, not everyone runs NFS securely, but that is not the fault of the solution itself.

[timofonic]

Michael
What sbout this?

] A new swap abstraction layer for the kernel [Kernel] Posted May 23, 2024 19:27 UTC (Thu) by corbet Swapping may be a memory-management technique at its core, but its implementation also involves the kernel's filesystem and storage layers. So it is not surprising that a session on the kernel's swap abstraction layer, led by Chris Li at the 2024 Linux Storage, Filesystem, Memory-Management and BPF Summit, was held jointly by all three of those tracks. Li has some ambitious ideas for an improved subsystem, but getting to a workable implementation may not be easy.

Tons of nice stuff here for news articles!!: https://events.linuxfoundation.org/lsfmmbpf/

[waxhead]

It's probably about time to retire NFS altogether. Security is practically nonexistent, and I really wouldn't recommend it for hardly anything. The only thing I still use it for is to share the update cache folder in Arch among several computers.

A good replacement would be nice. SMB is okay, but it's kind of clunky and I wish it could use SSH keys rather than passwords. SSHFS is almost great since it's based on SSH and has simple communication design using just one port. It would be my ideal choice if only it could handle extended attributes.

I disagree. NFS has plenty of use and if anything it should not be discarded, but improved upon. A new protocol version would not hurt anybody.

With SSHFS ; try rebooting the fileserver while writing (or reading) from a file (or lots of files) and see what happens. This is one of the reasons you might need NFS (albeit that behavior may not be desirable for everyone, so it can be disabled).

SMB is usefull if you have windows clients around or are not very careful with your files.

And if NFS feels to slow , there are ways around that such setting the async option with it pros and cons.

[rene]

thank goodness. breaking news, stop the presses, finally the year of Desktop Linux!

[caligula]

I disagree. NFS has plenty of use and if anything it should not be discarded, but improved upon. A new protocol version would not hurt anybody.

With SSHFS ; try rebooting the fileserver while writing (or reading) from a file (or lots of files) and see what happens. This is one of the reasons you might need NFS (albeit that behavior may not be desirable for everyone, so it can be disabled).

SMB is usefull if you have windows clients around or are not very careful with your files.

And if NFS feels to slow , there are ways around that such setting the async option with it pros and cons.

NFS is much faster than e.g. SMB when interacting with Apple systems. It's also more reliable. No need to wait for random periods of time for computers to show up in the local network view. SSHFS also requires tons of CPU power, especially on older systems. Gigabit half-duplex ethernet already saturates a Pentium 4 CPU completely.