On Friday August 4, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Neil, a headsup: this hunk clashes with one in the server large
> wsize patch, and will require minor and obvious manual adjustment.
>
Ack.
> > I don't recall the history of /proc/sys/fs -- is there also a
> > /proc/sys/fs/nfsd directory,
>
> No.
>
> > and wouldn't it be better to add this
> > particular sysctl in there?
>
> I'd be happy to see such a thing. One of my pending patches adds
> serverside sysctls; it feels wrong putting them in /proc/sys/fs/nfs/.
> OTOH that directory already has four serverside NLM entries that
> people do use.
And all those nlm tunables are in
/sys/module/lockd/parameters/
as well.
So here is the question. Should nfsd tunables go in
- /proc/sys/fs/something. ?
I agree that /proc/sys/fs/nfs isn't the best place.
An .../nfsd could be created ofcourse
- /sys/module/nfsd/parameters/ ?
I like this approach. Believe it or not, 'nfsd' is not a
filesystem. It is a .... service? So putting it under
'fs' has always felt wrong. And using the modules parameter
approach makes it look more like a parameter to a module rather
than a config for some filesystem...
- The 'nfsd' filesystem.
(which is mounted under /proc/fs ... I'm beginning to regret that
name choice just a little, but there wasn't anywhere else
obvious).
This is probably best from a usability perspective - all nfsd stuff
in the one place.
So of the three options - the one that I find it hardest to justify
if /proc/sys, which is what the original patch uses - sad.
Other opinions on which is best?
NeilBrown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 09:36:58AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> So of the three options - the one that I find it hardest to justify
> if /proc/sys, which is what the original patch uses - sad.
I have no problem with fixing up the patch to use any other mechanism.
But if we do this, I think we should move all tunables. Having them
in multiple places just sucks. This includes /proc/sys/sunrpc/*_debug
(which ended up in /proc/sys/sunrpc because a the time I wrote this code,
there was no way a module could create a sysctl directory).
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
[email protected] | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs