Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759548AbXHaE5z (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:57:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753020AbXHaE5q (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:57:46 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:59733 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752532AbXHaE5p (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:57:45 -0400 Subject: RE: recent nfs change causes autofs regression From: Trond Myklebust To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Hua Zhong , "'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" , akpm@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: References: <000701c7eb49$cff701c0$6fe50540$@com> <1188513433.6626.24.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <001001c7eb57$afd2d320$0f787960$@com> <1188516173.6626.46.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <001501c7eb5d$d295d870$77c18950$@com> <1188517070.6626.54.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <001601c7eb5f$b6146980$223d3c80$@com> <1188534682.6626.70.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:57:40 -0400 Message-Id: <1188536260.6626.95.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Resend: resent X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-0.1, required=12.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=-0.058) X-UiO-Scanned: 968AD9183DBB94F7AB7A33ED899C95E84530971A X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.10.9 spam_score: 0 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 167 total 3574595 max/h 8345 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1210 Lines: 30 On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 21:38 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > No. Solaris defaults to breaking cache consistency. > > If so, and since that's obviously what people _expect_ to happen, why not > make that the default, with the "consistent" behaviour being the one that > needs an explicit option. The majority of "nfs sucks" complaints result from the general lack of understanding by sysadmins of the nfs caching model. I'd be very sceptical of any claim that most sysadmins "expect" broken cache consistency as a result of mounting the same filesystem with different mount options. > Just out of curiosity - Hua, is this NFSv2? Especially there, cache > "consistency" is largely a joke anyway, so defaulting to some annoying > careful mode is doubly ridiculous. NFSv2 has a close-to-open caching model which works fine as long as you don't break the underlying assumptions. See my comment above. 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/