On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 07:06:46PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote: > Also, except for the SYSCTL() naming issue they don't comflict. At the > moment it is perfectly ok to use both for mounts concurrently. > For example, you could have the following 2 lines in your /etc/fstab: > > nfs-server:/sub1 /mnt nfs rw 0 0 > nfs-server:/sub2 /mnt2 oldnfs rw 0 0 > > I don't know why you would actually choose to do this, unless you found > that the old NFS client did something that worked better for "/sub2" for > your purposes, but it will work fine.
My personal opinion is that supporting such configuration is not worth the efforts and actually I'd prefer to use the same sysctl tree (vfs.nfs.*) and the same fstype (nfs) in both clients. User would decide which to use by loading one kernel module or the other. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://yomoli.com
pgpDHEjGE9Of0.pgp
Description: PGP signature