From: "Talpey, Thomas" Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: nearing nfs-utils 1.1.0 and statd changes. Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:47:15 -0400 Message-ID: References: <17914.20117.186786.830574@notabene.brown> <20070316181047.GD4538@fieldses.org> <17917.53245.697560.272545@notabene.brown> <20070319230213.GD29272@fieldses.org> <20070320011458.GA31225@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net To: "J. Bruce Fields" 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 1HTbsh-0000NC-9t for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:47:55 -0700 Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1HTbsh-0000UM-MA for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:47:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <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> <20070320011458.GA31225@fieldses.org> 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 At 09:14 PM 3/19/2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >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. Ah, I get it. It has to be invalidated because the state can't be marked "out of grace"? The timestamp is the right fix of course, but wouldn't a single bit ("known to us" | "out of grace") kinda sorta do it? Then invalidation could at least be delayed. It's a little worse than awkward though. Isn't the server going to return BAD_STATEID after this (instead of stale/old)? The server goes from serving no state-granting ops, to dropping everything that didn't make it back to reclaim in time. The v3 nlm recovery doesn't do that. 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