Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Tim Cutts <timc@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> On 7 Nov 2006, at 3:40 am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org> writes:
>>
>>> Josselin Mouette <josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit :
>>>>> I would suggest b); reducing the "standard" set of packages seems
>>>>> like a
>>>>> feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will
>>>>> stay
>>>>> installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server
>>>>> as part
>>>>> of the *default* install.
>>>>
>>>> We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a
>>>> working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the
>>>> default
>>>> install.
>>>
>>> What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install?
>>>
>>> The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see
>>> tend to not use NFS at all. Do we have any usage statistics for the
>>> NFS client?
>>
>> But wouldn't you be surprised if "mount -tnfs server:/path
>> /local/path" suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install?
>>
>> And I'm not sure that you are right with your majority claim. A lot of
>> larger installations use nfs and they quickly add up to a lot of
>> systems rivaling the rest of the user base in numbers.
>
> Perhaps it's time I installed popcon on the 1000+ Debian systems I
> maintain as part of my job... :-)
> Tim
No default route on the compute nodes in our clusters. They can only
talk to the master nodes and themself. :(
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: