On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:55:41AM -0500, Scott Mayhew wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2015, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 04:45:57PM -0500, Scott Mayhew wrote: > > > For this to be effective, the clients still need to mount with a lower timeout, > > > but it doesn't need to be as aggressive as 1/10 of a second. > > > > That's just to prevent a file operation hanging too long in the case > > that nfsd or ip shutdown prevents the client getting a reply? > > That statement was based on early testing actually. I went on to test > with timeouts of 3, 10, 30, and 60 seconds, and it no longer appeared to > make a difference. I just forgot to remove that from my final cover > letter. OK. Though the window to hit the lost-reply case might be very small, I'm not sure. --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
