[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6513.1196877838@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:03:58 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Peter Staubach <staubach@...hat.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Steve Dickson <SteveD@...hat.com>, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How to manage shared persistent local caching (FS-Cache) with NFS?
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org> wrote:
> I think the shared superblock approach is the right one, but I'm a
> little concerned that there would now be different behavior for fscache
> and non-cached setups. Not sure of any better idea though.
The behaviour varies a bit anyway because there's a cache...
> > The R/O mount flag can be dealt with by moving readonlyness into the
> > vfsmount rather than having it a property of the superblock. The
> > superblock would then be read-only only if all its vfsmounts are also
> > read-only.
>
> Given that, how many connection parameters are there that are likely to
> actually differ on the same client, talking to the same server? Really?
I don't have figures on that, but I do know people have complained about it
for non-cached conditions.
> You could store the table in a NIS map, for example, and a udev rule or
> similar could trigger to load it later.
My point was meant to be that the presence and coverage of a cache is more
likely to reflect the client machine than would the NIS map for the NFS
automounts. You wouldn't necessarily want to store this table in NIS.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists