A while back I discovered a limitation in Linux's policy basedrouting, where you couldn't use the straightforward means to flexibly route outgoing traffic ona dual identity machine over differentinterfaces (for example, to force all SSH traffic to flow over one link,regardless of the destination). At the time I wrote:

To fix this situation up, you need to change the source IP address ofthe packets to fix them up. Unfortunately the only way I know of doingthis is to use source-

There's a lot of complicated approaches for high availability servicesin general. Fortunately, NFS's statelessness makes it easy to do arelatively simple, low-rent version of this.

First, make your fileserver names point to virtual IP addresses. Embodythese virtual IPs on the physical machines of your choice that have someform of shared storage. To fail over a (virtual) fileserver, take downthe IP address on the original machine, unshare and unmount everything,mount and share it on the new machine

When discussions of ZFS on Linux (for real, as more than a user-levelfilesystem) come up, the usual issue that gets brought up is thelicensing problem; Sun's CDDL is incompatible with the kernel's GPLrequirement. But Sun could always change that if they wanted to, and Ithink there's another, more serious problem.

To put it simply, my impression is that the Linux kernel people aregenerally strongly opposed to what I could call 'code drops', whereforeign

My problem with the direction that modern NFS protocol developmentis going is, to put it succinctly, that everyone involved seems towant to turn NFS into AFS or another real networked filesystem . Instead of just improving NFS as itstands, they seem to want to change it into something substantiallydifferent, something that would require a major restructuring of allsorts of things in order to use.

So what do I consider 'NFS as it stands'? To me, the virtues of NFS arethat it is a fast,