Um.. make that "approximating" :-) -----Original Message----- From: Muntz, Daniel Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 10:06 PM To: 'David Howells'; Bryan Henderson Cc: Andrew Morton; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; nfsv4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx; sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; steved@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches Callbacks, instead of assuming your data is good for some short period of time. It's all well and good that there are mechanisms to know that data has changed, but without some leasing/callback/(ugh)mandatory locking, you're just estimating consistency. -Dan -----Original Message----- From: David Howells [mailto:dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 5:20 PM To: Bryan Henderson Cc: dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx; Andrew Morton; Muntz, Daniel; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; nfsv4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx; sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; steved@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Pull request for FS-Cache, including NFS patches Bryan Henderson <hbryan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > AFS was designed to support local disk cache, so with callbacks > > > you can get a consistent system. > > > > It's less the callbacks and more the data version number that's important. > > Maybe for consistency, but for the performance benefits of local disk > caching, I believe the callbacks are pretty important. Indeed, but he said "so with callbacks you can get a _consistent_ system". David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
