[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130425134918.GC31851@fieldses.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:49:18 -0400
From: "bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc: David Wysochanski <dwysocha@...hat.com>,
Dave Chiluk <chiluk@...onical.com>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFSv4: Use exponential backoff delay for NFS4_ERRDELAY
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:30:58PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 09:29 -0400, bfields@...ldses.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 at worst doubling the delay while still bounding the
> > long-term average frequency of retries.
>
> So we start with a 15 second delay, and then go to 60 seconds?
I agree that a server should normally be doing the wait on its own if
the wait would be on the order of an rpc round trip.
So I'd be inclined to start with a delay that was an order of magnitude
or two more than a round trip.
And I'd expect NFS isn't common on networks with 1-second latencies.
So the 1/10 second we're using in the synchronous case sounds closer to
the right ballpark to me.
--b.
--
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