From: sfaibish Subject: Re: 4.1 client - LAYOUTCOMMIT & close Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:57:37 -0400 Message-ID: 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.trondhje! m .org> < 4C35F5E3.3000604@panasas.com> <4C3658BC.2060207@oracle.! com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" 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: "Tom Haynes" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C3658BC.2060207@oracle.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@ietf.org List-ID: On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:01:16 -0400, Tom Haynes = wrote: > 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. Agreed. This is what I thought about "white board" a presentation followed = by a discussion on plan of action, perhaps a new 4.2 draft if there is a need. We can continue it in the email after we decide what to do. > > 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? My bad using the wrong term. I don't think we need a special time slot but we can decide on the spot in Maastricht. We should be able to find a room available. > > -- = Best Regards Sorin Faibish Corporate Distinguished Engineer Network Storage Group EMC=B2 where information lives Phone: 508-435-1000 x 48545 Cellphone: 617-510-0422 Email : sfaibish@emc.com _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4