On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:57:27AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > If we want to be paranoid, we handle i_version updates non-lazily; I > can see arguments in favor of that. > > Ext4 only enables MS_I_VERSION if the user asks for it explicitly, so > it wouldn't cause me any problems. However, xfs and btrfs enables it > by default, so that means xfs and btrfs wouldn't see the benefits of > lazytime (if you're going to have to push I_VERSION to disk, you might > as well update the [acm]time while you're at it). I've always thought > that we *should* do is to only enable it if nfsv4 is serving the file > system, and not otherwise, though, which would also give us > consistency across all the file systems. I guess you need to worry about the case where you shutdown nfsd, modify a file, then restart nfsd--you don't want a client to miss the modification in that case. --b. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
