Re: Changing NGROUPS_MAX to 1024?

On Sun, Apr 19, 2026 at 01:36:48AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > This is a matter of where the valuable programming time goes, to make
> > it easier to use the old protocol versions, or to be able to use NFS
> > with a sound security model.
> 
> If programmer time were fungible, that would be true (or at least
> vaguely close; the amount of effort, and skill required, may not be
> equal for the two tasks).

True. Time spared on support for the NFSv3 functionality would not bring
us NFSv4 by itself.

> what gets done is what people
> feel like working on.  Whether the results are important to anyone is
> relevant only insofar as it influences what people choose to work on.

Exactly. This is why it helps to mention which kínd of effort might
be most useful.

> > As soon as you need security, the performance of v3 becomes
> > irrelevant.
> 
> Unless your threat model is such that you can get that security through
> infrastructure instead of NFS version choice/config, in which case it
> becomes a choice.  (For example, I once ran `insecure' NFS over the
> open Internet...with security provided by what amounted to a VPN.)

Yes, strictly speaking, not totally irrelevant.

OTOH NFSv3 itself and the security workarounds come with a cost (not
least the inevitable constraints on the system's management and
evolution/adjustment).

Relying on some mainstream OS with support for NFSv4 does not bring
similar disadvantages.

As a result, without NFSv4 it is hard to expect that NetBSD would be
considered for new NFS installations. :-(

kind regards,
od2uvb