From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: NFSv4/pNFS possible POSIX I/O API standards Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:05:56 +0000 Message-ID: <20061205100556.GB5871@infradead.org> References: <1164950795.5761.25.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1164984094.5761.86.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20061203015203.GA5656@schatzie.adilger.int> <20061204073200.GB5637@schatzie.adilger.int> <1165245336.711.176.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4574C48A.8030007@mcs.anl.gov> <6.2.3.4.2.20061204213401.0566eac0@cic-mail.lanl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Rob Ross , Trond Myklebust , Andreas Dilger , Sage Weil , Christoph Hellwig , Brad Boyer , Anton Altaparmakov , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:41721 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967628AbWLEKGZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:06:25 -0500 To: Gary Grider Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20061204213401.0566eac0@cic-mail.lanl.gov> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:44:08PM -0700, Gary Grider wrote: > The one use that some users talk about is just knowing the file is > growing is important and useful to them, > knowing exactly to the byte how much growth seems less important to > them until they close. > On these big parallel apps, so many things can happen that can just > hang. They often use > the presence of checkpoint files and how big they are to gage > progress of he application. > Of course there are other ways this can be accomplished but they do > this sort of thing > a lot. That is the main case I have heard that might benefit from > "possibly-inaccurate" values. > Of course it assumes that the inaccuracy is just old information and > not bogus information. There are better ways to do it but we refuse to do it right is hardly an option to add kernel bloat.. > Thanks, we will put out a complete version of what we have in a > document to the Open Group > site in a week or two so all the pages in their current state are > available. We could then > begin some iteration on all these comments we have gotten from the > various communities. Could you please stop putting out specs until you actually have working code? There's absolutely no point in standardizing things until it's actually used in practice.