From: "Talpey, Thomas" <Thomas.Talpey@netapp.com>
Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: nearing nfs-utils 1.1.0 and statd changes.
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:30:42 -0400
Message-ID: <EXNANE01h7jtrSByh130000010c@exnane01.hq.netapp.com>
References: <17914.20117.186786.830574@notabene.brown>
	<20070316181047.GD4538@fieldses.org>
	<17917.53245.697560.272545@notabene.brown>
	<20070319230213.GD29272@fieldses.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070319230213.GD29272@fieldses.org>
References: <17914.20117.186786.830574@notabene.brown>
	<20070316181047.GD4538@fieldses.org>
	<17917.53245.697560.272545@notabene.brown>
	<20070319230213.GD29272@fieldses.org>
Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net

At 07:02 PM 3/19/2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>so.  That means that we no longer need to forget those clients that
>haven't reclaimed at the end of grace--we *can* if we want to, but it's
>not urgent because (as long as we also rememember "boot" times), we can
>notice at the next boot that their last reclaim was too long ago.

In fact, it's highly desirable to keep their state around, until some
conflict arises. Maybe the network is partitioed, etc. It's the Internet
Principle, in addition to being appropriately lazy. 

But I have a question - what's "too long ago"? Do you propose
refusing a reclaim after some interval?

Tom.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs