For those using NFS...

[BobPhoenix]

Unsurprisingly I would disagree - many people will make choices based on the feature set of the player. NFSv3 is a robust, reliable,stable and most importantly ubiquitous protocol and it's sensible to have bought something that supports it. How many other NAS appliances / devices / OS's don't support NFSv3? I don't know the answer but my hunch would be unraid would be quite unusual in this.

He wasn't saying get rid of it completely just limit it to 32 bit product.  That sounds reasonable to me.  64Bit product use advanced protocol.  32Bit product and up until now the ONLY one available use older protocol.

[Russ Uno]

you're facing a protocol (AFP) being formally killed off by it's primary (only?) vendor. Following suit seems sensible. That's not the case for NFSv3. I also have a sneaky hunch that most people only want AFP (via netatalk) support on unraid for time machine support

 

Actually I don't use time machine at all.

I use unRaid for recording video to as an external hard drive from a MacMini HTCP.

There are many people in the AV forums doing or looking to do the same and looking for AFP support to use unRaid or other server software to do that. From what I understand Apple is not doing away with AFP for local use just for communicating with a server through the finder for storage, this is not the same as using it as an external hard drive where an application is directly using it to record to and play from.

[madburg]

+1 my AFP dependency is not for TM

[WeeboTech]

My beef with this so far is, unRAID 6 was suppose to be unRAID 5 with 64 bit support.

my feeling is,  telling someone go back to v5 is like a slap in the face.

 

There have always been low memory issues with v5 and very large arrays.

There have always been issues with NFSv3 and user shares with stale file handles.

 

v6 now adds XEN support, but takes away a basic feature of v5.

 

Frankly, part of me is thinking too much is being done to v6.

 

If v6 was just v5 with x64 support, it would satisfy allot of people who have low memory issues now.

 

The conversation is now floating the idea of dropping support of features people use.

 

While Xen/KVM is a real positive future for unRAID, dropping important actively used file server protocols while moving to 64bit is a slap in the face of people who want the increased memory availability.

 

I would rather have had a smaller incremental approach.

 

While reading the OP, I understand the reasons why to limit NFS v3 to disk shares only.

My thought is, perhaps do the NFS v4/NFS v3 a little later, or add NFS v4 and limit the NFS v3 later on.

[limetech]

Thanks for all the feedback and opinion on this subject.  There are bigger fish to fry, so the decision at this point is to carry on with NFSv3 and later add NFSv4 support (retaining NFSv3).  As for AFP, sorry for opening can of worms... but I also got useful feedback on this as well with similar decision.  I will continue plan of updating to netatalk 3.  Again, thanks for your posts and I'm going to lock the thread now.