From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:44:43 -0800 Message-ID: <20081218184443.d73f5431.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20081218123601.11810b7f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <8930.1229560221@redhat.com> <20081218224418.804f10bc.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081218142420.GA16728@infradead.org> <7633.1229653644@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, steved@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, rwheeler@redhat.com To: David Howells Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7633.1229653644@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:27:24 +0000 David Howells wrote: > > Are any distros pushing for this? Or shipping it? If so, are they > > able to weigh in and help us with this quite difficult decision? > > We (Red Hat) have shipped it in RHEL-5 and some Fedora releases. Doing so is > quite an effort, though, precisely because the code is not yet upstream. We > have customers using it and are gaining more customers who want it. There > even appear to be CentOS users using it (or at least complaining when it > breaks). That's useful news. > > I don't know what will convince you. I've given you theoretical reasons why > caching ought to be useful; I've backed up the ones I've implemented with > benchmarks; I've given you examples of what our customers are doing with it or > want to do with it. Was that information captured/maintained somewhere? It really is important (I think) for something of this magnitude. > Please help me understand what else you want. I want to be able to have an answer when someone asks me "why was all that stuff merged". One which I can believe. > Do you perhaps want the netfs maintainers (such as Trond) to say that it's > necessary? Of course, their opinions (and supporting explanations) would be valuable.