On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 14:23 -0400, Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > Hi, > > Such a server implementation will certainly not be long in coming. Good. However until then, we have nothing to test any performance claims against. Trond > ----- "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 > > > > -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- 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
