I would greatly appreciate it I can get a reply from NFS41 server
implementers out there on the subject of whether or not the following
feature are (a) currently implemented by your server, (b) will be
implemented soon (1year), (c) having interest in being implemented
within the next few years and (d) are so low in priority that could be
said: will never be implemented.
volatile handles
named attributes
directory delegations
SSV
trunking (session or clientid)
segmented file layouts
recall of file layouts
cb_notify_deviceid
cb_getattr
cb_recall_slot
cb_notify_lock
Thank you.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 02:30:49PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> I would greatly appreciate it I can get a reply from NFS41 server
> implementers out there on the subject of whether or not the following
> feature are (a) currently implemented by your server, (b) will be
> implemented soon (1year), (c) having interest in being implemented
> within the next few years and (d) are so low in priority that could be
> said: will never be implemented.
This could change depending on interest, of course, but:
> volatile handles
> named attributes
Probably both (d).
> directory delegations
> SSV
I'm guessing (c) or (d). (I'd be happier if SSV were a higher priority,
but oh well.)
> trunking (session or clientid)
(b)
> segmented file layouts
>
> recall of file layouts
> cb_notify_deviceid
Not sure.
> cb_getattr
(c)
> cb_recall_slot
> cb_notify_lock
Probably both (c).
This list doesn't necessarily get you anyone other than linux
implementors, so you may want to ask on [email protected] or ask people at
the bakeathon.
--b.
On 2010-09-23 23:04, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 02:30:49PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
>> I would greatly appreciate it I can get a reply from NFS41 server
>> implementers out there on the subject of whether or not the following
>> feature are (a) currently implemented by your server, (b) will be
>> implemented soon (1year), (c) having interest in being implemented
>> within the next few years and (d) are so low in priority that could be
>> said: will never be implemented.
>
> This could change depending on interest, of course, but:
>
>> volatile handles
>> named attributes
>
> Probably both (d).
>
>> directory delegations
>> SSV
>
> I'm guessing (c) or (d). (I'd be happier if SSV were a higher priority,
> but oh well.)
>
>> trunking (session or clientid)
>
> (b)
>
>> segmented file layouts
>>
maybe (c)
>> recall of file layouts
>> cb_notify_deviceid
This is already implemented in the linux-pnfs tree.
Benny
>
> Not sure.
>
>> cb_getattr
>
> (c)
>
>> cb_recall_slot
>> cb_notify_lock
>
> Probably both (c).
>
> This list doesn't necessarily get you anyone other than linux
> implementors, so you may want to ask on [email protected] or ask people at
> the bakeathon.
>
> --b.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:04 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[email protected]>=
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 02:30:49PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
>> I would greatly appreciate it I can get a reply from NFS41 server
>> implementers out there on the subject of whether or not the followin=
g
>> feature are (a) currently implemented by your server, (b) will be
>> implemented soon (1year), (c) having interest in being implemented
>> within the next few years and (d) are so low in priority that could =
be
>> said: will never be implemented.
>
> This could change depending on interest, of course, but:
>
>> volatile handles
>> named attributes
>
> Probably both (d).
>
>> directory delegations
>> SSV
>
> I'm guessing (c) or (d). =A0(I'd be happier if SSV were a higher prio=
rity,
> but oh well.)
>
>> trunking (session or clientid)
>
> (b)
>
>> segmented file layouts
>>
>> recall of file layouts
>> cb_notify_deviceid
>
> Not sure.
>
>> cb_getattr
>
> (c)
>
>> cb_recall_slot
>> cb_notify_lock
>
> Probably both (c).
>
> This list doesn't necessarily get you anyone other than linux
> implementors, so you may want to ask on [email protected] or ask people =
at
> the bakeathon.
Thank you Bruce. Thomas Haynes has also pointed this mistake out to me
and I posted to the ietf list.