From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595D57F4E for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:13:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4DCAC009 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [174.143.236.118]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id M4h0i0Ji4zONsUqg (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:11:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:11:45 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH-v2 0/5] add support for a lazytime mount option Message-ID: <20141124221145.GB24003@fieldses.org> References: <1416675267-2191-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20141124090755.GA28534@infradead.org> <20141124115727.GA19918@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141124115727.GA19918@thunk.org> From: "J. Bruce Fields" List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ext4 Developers List , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:57:27AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > If we want to be paranoid, we handle i_version updates non-lazily; I > can see arguments in favor of that. > > Ext4 only enables MS_I_VERSION if the user asks for it explicitly, so > it wouldn't cause me any problems. However, xfs and btrfs enables it > by default, so that means xfs and btrfs wouldn't see the benefits of > lazytime (if you're going to have to push I_VERSION to disk, you might > as well update the [acm]time while you're at it). I've always thought > that we *should* do is to only enable it if nfsv4 is serving the file > system, and not otherwise, though, which would also give us > consistency across all the file systems. I guess you need to worry about the case where you shutdown nfsd, modify a file, then restart nfsd--you don't want a client to miss the modification in that case. --b. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs