On 10/01/2010 08:12 AM, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote: > On 10/01/2010 06:17 AM, Marc Eshel wrote: >> Hi Benny, >> >> Running connectathon I see that some times the clients decides to destroy >> the session with the DS. The test continue and the session is >> re-established. It looks like layout return reduces the hold on device >> info the reduces the hold on the client struct which decide to destroy the >> session. Is that a known problem? >> Yes, I want to emphasize on Marks words: "a known *problem*" I have objected strongly to this new "fixture" by Fred and backed up by Benny. They decided to only hold a deviceid as long as a layout references it. And not like before, until unmount. I think they are totally wrong with regard to current servers and implementation and a setup that might enjoy what is done now, will not exist for at least 3 years or more. An argument was made that current code is more simple. But I have demonstrated that all that is needed is a one-line get_ref at device add. And that iteration on all devices at umount time that was there before and removed in latest code. !!! Boaz > Just wan to confirm that we see this as well (pnfs-submit and > pnfs-all-latest). > > Tigran. >> Thanks, Marc. >> -- >> 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 > -- 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
