On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:51:20PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, "bfie...@fieldses.org"
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, "bfie...@fieldses.org"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Apr
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, "bfie...@fieldses.org"
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, "bfie...@fieldses.org"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, "bfie...@fieldses.org"
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, "bfie...@fieldses.org"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, "bfie...@fieldses.org"
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, "bfie...@fieldses.org"
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > My position
On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:49 AM, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
>>
>>> My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even
>>> delay should be. And
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
> >
> > > My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even
> > > delay
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
>
> > My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even
> > delay should be. And that in such a situation exponential backoff such
> > as
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
> My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even
> delay should be. And that in such a situation exponential backoff such
> as implemented in the synchronous case seems the reasonable default as
> it
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:19:34AM -0400, David Wysochanski wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 22:35 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > > On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 08:19 -0400, David Wysochanski wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 22:35 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > > On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> >
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 22:35 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > >> Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 22:35 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 08:19 -0400, David Wysochanski wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 22:35 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
Changing
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:19:34AM -0400, David Wysochanski wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 22:35 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even
delay should be. And that in such a situation exponential backoff such
as implemented in the synchronous case seems the reasonable default as
it guarantees
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even
delay should be. And that in such a situation exponential backoff such
as implemented
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even
delay should be. And
On Apr 25, 2013, at 9:49 AM, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
My position is that we simply have no idea what order of magnitude even
delay should be. And that in
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
My position is that we
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:49 -0400, bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25,
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:10:36PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:51:20PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:19 PM, bfie...@fieldses.org bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> >> Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
> >> to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of
On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
>> Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
>> to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
>>
>> Additionally this alleviates an
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
> to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
>
> Additionally this alleviates an interoperability problem with the AIX NFSv4
> Server.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:55:49PM -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
> to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
>
> Additionally this alleviates an interoperability problem with the AIX NFSv4
>
Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
Additionally this alleviates an interoperability problem with the AIX NFSv4
Server. The AIX server frequently (2 out of 3) returns NFS4ERR_DELAY,
Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
Additionally this alleviates an interoperability problem with the AIX NFSv4
Server. The AIX server frequently (2 out of 3) returns NFS4ERR_DELAY,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:55:49PM -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
Additionally this alleviates an interoperability problem with the AIX NFSv4
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
Additionally this alleviates an interoperability problem with the AIX NFSv4
Server. The
On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
Additionally this alleviates an
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these
36 matches
Mail list logo
