On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 09:08 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Tue, June 16, 2009 8:53 am, Amit Gud wrote: > > Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> It boils down to this: I'm extremely reluctant to get into an arms race > >> of adding ever more mount options for increasingly finer-tuned attribute > >> cache timeouts. While such an option may meet _your_ machine room > >> requirements here and now, it becomes tiresome over the years as > >> machines gain power, and people first start lobbying for millisecond > >> timeouts, then microseconds, nanoseconds, pico... in order to catch up. > >> > > > > It only makes sense to make machines more powerful and put that power to > > optimum use. If keeping up with increased resolution is an issue, you > > think something like "-o unit=ms acregmin=..." would be better? 'unit' > > can apply to all the time related options defaulting to seconds. > > Wasn't this problem solved hundreds of years ago by the invention > of the decimal point :-) > > -o acregmin=0.0012 > > Write the code to use as much precision as makes sense given the value > of HZ - and round up. No new mount options. That works for me... Trond -- 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
