Subject: [nfsv4] re: Re: stable storage for server restart

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:04:31 -0500 (EST)

The idea of using a file system directory tree is interesting. I can see
that it would be useful for sysadmins to browse and might (I'd have to
think about that one some more) make handling revocation of only part
of a client's state work more easily. (I can also see that pruning out
inactive clients is a nice feature.)

The only negative I can think of is that you have to have a high degree
of trust in the reliability of the local fs (w.r.t. not losing anything
recently created after a crash/reboot). I barely trust an append write
with flags that say "sync to disk" to get through safely on BSD. I
did put "you must disable caching on the disk it resides on" in the man
page for mine, although I suspect few will pay attention:-)

Sounds good, rick

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: "William A.(Andy) Adamson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:53:20 -0500

[email-masked] said:
> he idea of using a file system directory tree is interesting. I can see that
> it would be useful for sysadmins to browse and might (I'd have to think about
> that one some more) make handling revocation of only part of a client's state
> work more easily. (I can also see that pruning out inactive clients is a nice
> feature.)

> The only negative I can think of is that you have to have a high degree of
> trust in the reliability of the local fs (w.r.t. not losing anything recently
> created after a crash/reboot). I barely trust an append write with flags that
> say "sync to disk" to get through safely on BSD. I did put "you must disable
> caching on the disk it resides on" in the man page for mine, although I
> suspect few will pay attention:-)

i do have a high degree of trust in the local fs - mkdir, fsync, and rmdir 
better be right, or the local fs will be in trouble!