From: "Talpey, Thomas" Subject: Re: Delays on "first" access to a NFS mount Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:36:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20070307112347.6a40faff.simon.peter@gmx.de> <20070307160633.77afb618.simon.peter@gmx.de> <20070307154240.GB26553@fieldses.org> <20070307194418.97fee0ec.simon.peter@gmx.de> <20070307205016.GI26553@fieldses.org> <20070307224054.b2cbc294.simon.peter@gmx.de> <17903.14864.866148.254685@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net To: Neil Brown Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HP4kD-0006fJ-Or for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:36:28 -0800 Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1HP4kE-0002Gm-Ml for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:36:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: <17903.14864.866148.254685@notabene.brown> References: <20070307112347.6a40faff.simon.peter@gmx.de> <20070307160633.77afb618.simon.peter@gmx.de> <20070307154240.GB26553@fieldses.org> <20070307194418.97fee0ec.simon.peter@gmx.de> <20070307205016.GI26553@fieldses.org> <20070307224054.b2cbc294.simon.peter@gmx.de> <17903.14864.866148.254685@notabene.brown> 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 05:17 PM 3/7/2007, Neil Brown wrote: >On Wednesday March 7, simon.peter@gmx.de wrote: >> >> I think what Tom had in mind was to stat all directories once, remember >> their values, have inotify keep an eye on 'em and whenever they change, >> update the remembered values. This way, disk access would only have to >> be done whenever something changes, which is when the disk is spun up >> anyway. > >There is certainly some sense in that approach. I don't think >inotify is needed though. The only part of the stat information we >are interested in is major/minor/inode numbers, and they don't change. Actually I thought it would important to also look at the permission bits and/or any acls, in case access were revoked e.g mode 0. The export needs to be invalidated, basically as mountd would have found if exporting from scratch. Wouldn't it? Come to think of it, maybe not. If the export goes bad then the client gets ESTALE, that's different from revoking access or never exporting. In that case I think mountd just needs to be sure the export point doesn't go away due to unmount, or is covered by a new one. 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