Re: 4.1 client - LAYOUTCOMMIT & close

[Tom Haynes <tom.haynes@oracle.com>]

On 07/ 8/10 05:12 PM, sfaibish wrote:
> All, After discussing this issue with Dave Noveck and as I mentioned 
> in the
> call today I think that this is a serious issue and a disconnect between
> different layout types behavior. My proposal is to have this 
> discussion F2F
> in Maastricht on the white board. So I will add an agenda item to the WG
> on this topic. I could address the behavior of the block layout but
> it is not something we want to mimic as we all agreed at cthon to 
> avoid the
> LAYOUTCOMMIT as much as possible for file layout. If we solve the
> issue using the proposed mechanism (Trond) we will create a conflict
> with the use of LAYOUTCOMMIT. Just as a hint the difference from block is
> that block uses layout for write and read as different leases and
> when a client has layout for read the server will always send him
> a LAYOUTRETURN when either upgrading his lease to write of send a layout
> for write to another client. We don't want to do same for file, I
> don't think so. My 2c.
>
> /Sorin

When I hear the words "white board", I immediately think unorganized and 
likely
to get out of hand. I don't know how much time we are up to now, but we must
be close to running out of it.

I have a counter-proposal, why doesn't someone, say Trond, put together
some slides on this and we discuss them.

Or, if there is a strong consensus that we do need to do this on a white
board, why don't we ask ietf for an additional slot in the morning?
_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4