From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: nearing nfs-utils 1.1.0 and statd changes. Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:14:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20070320011458.GA31225@fieldses.org> 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: "Talpey, Thomas" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTSwG-0001Nk-St for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:15:09 -0700 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214] helo=fieldses.org) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1HTSwH-0004F6-KJ for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:15:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:30:42PM -0400, Talpey, Thomas wrote: > 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. You're getting a little ahead of me here. I'm not talking about trying to allow reclaims after the grace period ends--I agree that that would be nice, but I don't see a really simple way to do that. I'm just talking about how we implement the simplest reboot recovery behavior. Currently we're *not* doing what the rfc suggests--keeping a record with timestamp of first open, etc.--instead we're basically remembering just the one bit per client (is this client known to us or not), which means we *must* synchronously invalidate every client as we exit the grace period. That's awkward. > But I have a question - what's "too long ago"? Do you propose > refusing a reclaim after some interval? So by "too long ago" I mean "more than one boot ago". --b. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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