On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 15:44 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > If you would like connected UDP, I won't object to you implementing > > it. However, I never tested whether a connected UDP socket will give > > the desired semantics without extra code in the UDP transport (for > > example, an ->sk_error callback). I don't think it's worth the hassle > > if we have to add code to UDP that only this tiny use case would need. > > > > OK. I'll set these patches aside until I have time to look into adding > connected UDP support. I'm curious--why weren't you convinced by this argument?: "You're talking about the difference between supporting say 1358 mounts at boot time versus 1357 mounts at boot time. "In most cases, a client with hundreds of mounts will use up exactly one extra privileged TCP port to register NLM during the first lockd_up() call. If these are all NFSv4 mounts, it will use exactly zero extra ports, since the NFSv4 callback service is not even registered. "Considering that _each_ mount operation can take between 2 and 5 privileged ports, while registering NFSD and NLM both would take exactly two ports at boot time, I think that registration is wrong place to optimize." I'll admit to not following this carefully, but that seemed reasonable to me. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
