Re: HEADS-UP: nearing nfs-utils 1.1.0 and statd changes.

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

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