Trond Myklebust wrote: > 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... Or better how about -o acregmin=12micro steved > > 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 -- 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
