-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 That's a fair point, the reasoning here is incomplete, and probably still mis-stated.
Write-on-close at the clients can never be equivalent to bounded asynchronous writes _at the server_. What I'm really trying to say is: synchronous delivery of invalidates cannot assert consistency for the system, because it presumes consistency before the callback event--and due to (at least) write-on-close, the presumption is in interesting cases, commonly false. I am next making a (not fully supported) assertion that bounded, asynchronous delivery of invalidates is sufficient for the consistency model we _actually_ have. That is not to say we don't have a need for a stronger consistency model, or models. The locking draft formalizes a model I believe closer to posix--and provides extension mechanisms for supporting stronger consistency models (eg, DCE, other) in future. I'll beef this up... Matt Steven Jenkins wrote: > > Could you elaborate on your assertion that synchronous write-on-close > is equivalent to bounded asynchronous writes? Specifically, could you > provide information on the write-on-close vs write-through (or other > semantic models) that you are assuming for 'asynchronous callback > events'? - -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJB0OkJiSUUSaRdSURCNS2AJwOAy7NxA8ZzfzWbywyrUcHTVU6DACeLjks PSVdou7NfTyDW+1VYgIiGzA= =pb5J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
