[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FA345DA4F4AE44899BD2B03EEEC2FA9287414AA@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:42:50 +0000
From: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To: "Matt W. Benjamin" <matt@...uxbox.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>,
"bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] NFSv4: Use exponential backoff delay for Ni
It's legal, but dumb...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt W. Benjamin [mailto:matt@...uxbox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:28 AM
> To: Myklebust, Trond
> Cc: David Wysochanski; Dave Chiluk; linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; bfields@...ldses.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFSv4: Use exponential backoff delay for Ni
>
> Hi,
>
> Just to clarify, the IBM delay behavior is not legal?
>
> Matt
>
> ----- "Trond Myklebust" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, then. Now all I need is actual motivation for changing the
> > existing code other than handwaving arguments about "polling is better
> > than flat waits".
> > What actual use cases are impacting us now, other than the AIX design
> > decision to force CLOSE to retry at least once before succeeding?
> >
>
>
> --
> Matt Benjamin
> The Linux Box
> 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
> Ann Arbor, MI 48104
>
> http://linuxbox.com
>
> tel. 734-761-4689
> fax. 734-769-8938
> cel. 734-216-5309
Powered by blists - more mailing lists