From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Configure out file locking features Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:00:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20080729200006.GA25885@shareable.org> References: <20080729154520.728594017@free-electrons.com> <20080729154747.872888047@free-electrons.com> <20080729181751.GA24924@parisc-linux.org> <1217357875.15724.167.camel@calx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Thomas Petazzoni , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: Matt Mackall Return-path: Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:43920 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751372AbYG2UAX (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:00:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1217357875.15724.167.camel@calx> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Matt Mackall wrote: > The typical embedded NFS-based devices are NAS servers and media players > and are going to be more concerned about things like page cache > balancing. Oh, those. It would be really annoying to buy a home NAS and find it doesn't support NFS locks or SMB oplocks. NASes are vaguely useful for more than one computer in the house at the same time. That said, I bought a big, expensive one, found it far too slow for my needs, send it back for a refund and bought a portable cheap USB disk which had *so* much higher performance. The convenience of serving multiple machines just wasn't worth the lousy performance. -- Jamie