From: William A.(Andy) Adamson (andros@citi.umich.edu)
Date: 02/21/05-04:53:20 PM Z
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:53:20 -0500 From: "William A.(Andy) Adamson" <andros@citi.umich.edu> Message-Id: <20050221225320.61DE81BAC2@citi.umich.edu> Subject: [nfsv4] Re: stable storage for server restart rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca said: > he idea of using a file system directory tree is interesting. I can see that > it would be useful for sysadmins to browse and might (I'd have to think about > that one some more) make handling revocation of only part of a client's state > work more easily. (I can also see that pruning out inactive clients is a nice > feature.) > The only negative I can think of is that you have to have a high degree of > trust in the reliability of the local fs (w.r.t. not losing anything recently > created after a crash/reboot). I barely trust an append write with flags that > say "sync to disk" to get through safely on BSD. I did put "you must disable > caching on the disk it resides on" in the man page for mine, although I > suspect few will pay attention:-) i do have a high degree of trust in the local fs - mkdir, fsync, and rmdir better be right, or the local fs will be in trouble! > Sounds good, rick _______________________________________________ nfsv4 mailing list nfsv4@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-02:13:54 AM Z CST