I would have to agree and disagree as both of you have merit in your debate. Core roles of servers having access to data storage really depends. In most cases I see it often as a server admin function to handle, and in other cases I've seen entirely independent departments whom handle it.

I honestly feel it would be best to have it added into the Fedora Server itself so it's their and give the end client the ability to choose if they want to use it or not.
Thank you for your time. 


Garrett B. Leonard

From: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com>
To: server@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: NFS Role Definition

On 11/01/2016 04:23 PM, Vinny Valdez wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com
> <mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com>> wrote:

>    I'm not sure that we specifically need a client *role* for this. It kind of
>    depends on what we decide belongs in the base offering of Fedora Server.
>    In my view, storage is kind of a bootstrapping thing. I'm not sure I'd want to
>    install a special module just to attach to my storage servers; I'd expect to be
>    able to do that out-of-the-box.
>    I spoke with the Cockpit developers; they've got plans and a design for adding
>    NFS client support to Cockpit proper. They haven't prioritized it yet, but we
>    can ask.
> I would agree here. Since we are focused on the Server implementation, the
> client role doesn't need to be formalized from our WG. Certainly we need to test
> the functionality of the implemented Server role though. Perhaps we should work
> closely with the Workstation WG who would likely own the client roles?


That's not what I was saying, actually. Being able to connect to storage is
definitely a server function. I just disagree that it should happen at the level
of a Server Role. I think it's core functionality.

server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org