Subject: Re: NFS and kernel 2.6.x
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.or>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20040418032638.GA1786@mail.shareable.org>
References: <20040416011401.GD18329@widomaker.com>
	 <1082079061.7141.85.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <20040415185355.1674115b.akpm@osdl.org>
	 <20040416090331.GC22226@mail.shareable.org>
	 <1082130906.2581.10.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <20040416184821.GA25402@mail.shareable.org>
	 <1082142401.2581.131.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <20040416193914.GA25792@mail.shareable.org>
	 <1082241169.3930.14.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <20040418032638.GA1786@mail.shareable.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1082271815.3619.104.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 00:03:35 -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 829
Lines: 21

On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 20:26, Jamie Lokier wrote:

>       Are they intended to stop doubling at 3.2?  The major timeout
>       thus happens after 22.3 seconds.
> 
>       Unsurprisingly, subsequent major timeouts take 44.1 seconds.

Right... ...but since the timeout value is already capped at 60 seconds,
this is not a major problem. It is pretty pointless to be talking about
"predictable" or "consistent" behaviour when talking about a situation
where we believe that the server has crashed.

AFAICS, all we care about is to establish a predictable *lower limit*.

Cheers,
  Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/