Hi, Such a server implementation will certainly not be long in coming. Matt ----- "Trond Myklebust" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 19:57 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: > > > > Waiting for revocation may work well with some servers but would be > disastrous in > > terms of performance and responsiveness with others. > > I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but I have yet > to > see a single server side implementation of CB_RECALL_ANY, let alone > any > numbers that indicate performance or responsiveness problems > resulting > from our existing client-side implementation. > > I therefore find it hard to understand why optimising this particular > code is such a high priority, or why a patch that is adding per-file > layoutreturns to initiate_bulk_draining() is going to help anything > at > all. > > Trond > -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -- 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
