On Mar 6, 2014, at 10:59, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 6, 2014, at 10:26, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 6, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Jim Rees <rees@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Given this is apache, I think if I were doing this I'd use ro,soft,intr,tcp >>>> and not try to write anything to nfs. >>> >>> I agree. A static web page workload should be read-mostly or read-only. The (small) corruption risk with “ro,soft" is that an interrupted read would cause the client to cache incomplete data. >> >> What? How? If that were the case, we would have a blatant read bug. As I read the current code, _any_ error will cause the page to not be marked as up to date. > > Agree, the design is sound. But we don’t test this use case very much, so I don’t have 100% confidence that there are no bugs. Is that the royal ‘we’, or are you talking on behalf of all the QA departments and testers here? I call bullshit... _________________________________ Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
