From: Tom Haynes Subject: Re: 4.1 client - LAYOUTCOMMIT & close Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:01:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4C3658BC.2060207@oracle.com> References: <1278448834.16176.5.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <4C346D80.8010405@panasas.com> <1278507985.2804.30.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1278508696.2804.35.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <4C348679.6010507@panasas.com> <1278511416.2804.52.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1278536484.12889.4.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1278543175.15524.2.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1278544149.15524.15.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1278544497.15524.17.camel@heimdal.t rondhje! m .org> < 4C35F5E3.3000604@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, garth@panasas.com, welch@panasas.com, nfsv4@ietf.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, andros@netapp.com, bhalevy@panasas.com To: sfaibish Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org List-ID: On 07/ 8/10 05:12 PM, sfaibish wrote: > All, After discussing this issue with Dave Noveck and as I mentioned > in the > call today I think that this is a serious issue and a disconnect between > different layout types behavior. My proposal is to have this > discussion F2F > in Maastricht on the white board. So I will add an agenda item to the WG > on this topic. I could address the behavior of the block layout but > it is not something we want to mimic as we all agreed at cthon to > avoid the > LAYOUTCOMMIT as much as possible for file layout. If we solve the > issue using the proposed mechanism (Trond) we will create a conflict > with the use of LAYOUTCOMMIT. Just as a hint the difference from block is > that block uses layout for write and read as different leases and > when a client has layout for read the server will always send him > a LAYOUTRETURN when either upgrading his lease to write of send a layout > for write to another client. We don't want to do same for file, I > don't think so. My 2c. > > /Sorin When I hear the words "white board", I immediately think unorganized and likely to get out of hand. I don't know how much time we are up to now, but we must be close to running out of it. I have a counter-proposal, why doesn't someone, say Trond, put together some slides on this and we discuss them. Or, if there is a strong consensus that we do need to do this on a white board, why don't we ask ietf for an additional slot in the morning? _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4