On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's not just about intermediate nodes. It's also about the node that runs the SFS server. While it will impact those who need the data before you restart the server elsewhere, dropping the directory also impacts those who want it later. My major concern was about SFS control file backup, until I recently learned that you can also make it point to a directory rather than the file mode of a previously accessed directory. So that is gone now... > I appreciate the auto-release issue, but I don't see us changing that > behavior. It would be a Big Deal to redesign the SFS client. For myself, > I'd probably write a nucleus extension that periodically tries to > re-access my preferred filemodes if they aren't accessed. That idea does not fly. When my program needs the directory right now, it is of no help that it will be re-accessed in 5 seconds. The programming model around mini disk and file mode is that the disk is there from access until you release it yourself (or very bad things have happened that make a virtual machine question whether it is worth living). I don't want to program my code catch such an error on each I/O (if you even can). Rob
