On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:56:24PM -0400, Bradley C. Kuszmaul wrote: > This proposal does look like it would be helpful. How does this > kind of proposal play out in terms of actually seeing the light of > day in deployed systems? We need some people to commit to implementing it. We have 2-3 testing events a year, so ideally we'd agree to show up with implementations at one of those to test and hash out any issues. We revise the draft based on any experience or feedback we get. If nothing else, it looks like it needs some updates for v4.2. The on-the-wire protocol change seems small, and my feeling is that if there's running code then documenting the protocol and getting it through the IETF process shouldn't be a big deal. --b. > On 4/2/19 10:07 PM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:02:54AM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >>The create itself needs to be sync, but the attribute delegations mean > >>that the client, not the server, is authoritative for the timestamps. > >>So the client now owns the atime and mtime, and just sets them as part > >>of the (asynchronous) delegreturn some time after you are done writing. > >> > >>Were you perhaps thinking about this earlier proposal? > >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dmyklebust-2Dnfsv4-2Dunstable-2Dfile-2Dcreation-2D01&d=DwIBAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=YIKOmJLMLfe5wQR3VJI7jGjCnepZlMwumApzvaKItrY&m=qlAJ6dZPGjbcTzNIpkTyk-RTii6lWw1CLIjF6jp3P2Y&s=aTTFNJlRH-dXrQmE4cSYEUd8Kv3ij5cqTJtvgIixMa8&e= > >That's it, thanks! > > > >Bradley is concerned about performance of something like untar on a > >backend filesystem with particularly high-latency metadata operations, > >so something like your unstable file createion proposal (or actual write > >delegations) seems like it should help. > > > >--b.
