From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: A Question about the 2.4.21 Pathconf patch Date: 29 Apr 2003 21:39:09 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <3EAE956E.9080205@RedHat.com> <3EAEC774.20402@RedHat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19Aawc-0002fK-00 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0700 To: Steve Dickson In-Reply-To: <3EAEC774.20402@RedHat.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> " " == Steve Dickson writes: > Right... but with the difference being that statfs supplies > dynamic information and fsinfo supplies static info. And some NFSPROC_STATFS supplies a bit of both. You have the dynamic 'blocks, bfree, bavail', but you also have the static 'tsize' == r/wsize, and 'bsize'. > So I'm just curious, why (from a protocol purest standpoint) > its not being used... and if it ever was used, what were the > results... I'm not sure I understand the question. In which case do you think we should be using FSINFO/STATFS (but are currently not doing so)? Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs