On Mon, 05 Sep 2022, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 09:28 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > When I was first presented with this problem I thought logout/login > > was > > the answer and even provided a patch which would mean different > > logins > > got different cache keys. This wasn't very well received because it > > used to work without log out/in (because we didn't cache access > > indefinitely), but the killer was that it didn't even work reliably - > > because of propagation variability. > > Then the onus is upon you and the people who don't want the two > proposed solutions to figure out new ones. Timeouts are not acceptable. Why not? They have always been part of NFS. But let's forget about timeouts for the moment. You still haven't answered my question: What is the cost of not caching negative access results?? NeilBrown
