On 07/ 8/10 05:12 PM, sfaibish wrote:
All, After discussing this issue with Dave Noveck and as I mentioned
in the
call today I think that this is a serious issue and a disconnect between
different layout types behavior. My proposal is to have this
discussion F2F
in Maastricht on the white board. So I will add an agenda item to the WG
on this topic. I could address the behavior of the block layout but
it is not something we want to mimic as we all agreed at cthon to
avoid the
LAYOUTCOMMIT as much as possible for file layout. If we solve the
issue using the proposed mechanism (Trond) we will create a conflict
with the use of LAYOUTCOMMIT. Just as a hint the difference from block is
that block uses layout for write and read as different leases and
when a client has layout for read the server will always send him
a LAYOUTRETURN when either upgrading his lease to write of send a layout
for write to another client. We don't want to do same for file, I
don't think so. My 2c.
/Sorin
When I hear the words "white board", I immediately think unorganized and
likely
to get out of hand. I don't know how much time we are up to now, but we must
be close to running out of it.
I have a counter-proposal, why doesn't someone, say Trond, put together
some slides on this and we discuss them.
Or, if there is a strong consensus that we do need to do this on a white
board, why don't we ask ietf for an additional slot in the morning?
--
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
