On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:58:28PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
I'm also curious--exposing my total ignorance of the dlm--why taking
such a lock would always be so expensive, or would always be required on
open. Surely the typical case should be one where there's no conflict
and never has
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:46:51AM -0500, Robert Rappaport wrote:
We also have the same problem with leases, since we're using leases to
implement NFSv4 delegations. There's a simple-minded patch here:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:46:51AM -0500, Robert Rappaport wrote:
Thank you both for your helpful replies. In particular, the addition
of the calls to file system specific functions in routines,
fcntl_setlease() and break_lease(), as well as the modifications to
the file_operations and
Bruce,
After looking more carefully at your changes, I have a question. Why
didn't you modify the linux kernel routine, setlease(), so that it
would either call f_op-set_lease() or __setlease()? Instead you
created a new routine, nfs4_setlease(), and you modified the previous
calls to
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:46:51AM -0500, Robert Rappaport wrote:
We did an experimental distributed lease implementation in gfs(1) a while
ago. It worked, but was so extremely expensive that there was no point in
considering it seriously. The problem is that _every_ open and close of
every
I wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:46:51AM -0500, Robert Rappaport wrote:
We did an experimental distributed lease implementation in gfs(1) a while
(Sorry for the misattribution, it was David Tiegland that said that. I'm
having some mail troubles)--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Robert Rappaport [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
After looking more carefully at your changes, I have a question. Why
didn't you modify the linux kernel routine, setlease(), so that it
would either call f_op-set_lease() or __setlease()? Instead you
created a new routine, nfs4_setlease(), and you
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:51:54PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:46:51AM -0500, Robert Rappaport wrote:
We did an experimental distributed lease implementation in gfs(1) a while
ago. It worked, but was so extremely expensive that there was no point in
On 2/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Rappaport [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
After looking more carefully at your changes, I have a question. Why
didn't you modify the linux kernel routine, setlease(), so that it
would either call f_op-set_lease() or __setlease()? Instead
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:32:42AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
Robert Rappaport wrote:
[snip]
This is because the vfs running on the same node where the
samba server is running is not necessarily aware of all accesses to
the file on which it is granting a lease. Since vfs does not
I am investigating the problem of supporting a samba server's granting
of OpLocks to its clients when the files that the samba serving is
accessing are in a clustered file system.
A samba server running in linux determines whether and what kind of
OpLock (i.e. either shared or exclusive) to
Robert Rappaport wrote:
[snip]
This is because the vfs running on the same node where the
samba server is running is not necessarily aware of all accesses to
the file on which it is granting a lease. Since vfs does not
currently inform file systems about the granting and rescinding of
12 matches
Mail list logo
