On 10/1/2010 10:10 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 08:40:36AM -0700, Marc Eshel wrote:
On 10/1/2010 5:33 AM, Benny Halevy wrote:
On 2010-10-01 10:47, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
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*"
Marc, assuming the code behaves as expected, does this cause any other badness
like the GETATTRs you see going out to the DS?
Benny
No i don't see any "badness" the test continues without errors and
this problem is not related to the GETATTRs I see on the DS but I
would consider destroying the session in short run of couple of
minutes some times more than one time as something bad.
Why?
I wouldn't expect session destruction/creation to be *that* expensive.
I assumed that it is inexpensive. We are talking about potential
destruction/creation of session from every DS for each file IO if there
is no overlap in holding layouts, right ?
--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
--
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
