Subject: [nfsv4] RE: directory delegations--notification delays

From: "Khan, Saadia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:37:11 -0800

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:44 AM
To: Khan, Saadia; Spencer Shepler
Subject: directory delegations--notification delays

In section 4.3 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-01.tx
t

the text

	"If the client violates what supp_attr_file_notice or
	supp_attr_dir_notice values are, the server should not commit to
	sending notifications for that change event."

is a bit ambiguous (what does "violates" mean here?) and the final
paragraph

	"A value of N means that the server will make a best effort
	guarentee that attribute notification are not delayed by more
	than that."

probably isn't right.  (The server may use a longer delay if the
GET_DIR_DELEGATION request permits it, right?)

>> yes, that is correct.

How about replacing those by

	"When the client calls the GET_DIR_DELEGATION operation and asks
	for attribute change notifications, it should request
	notification delays that are no less than the values in the
	server-provided attributes.  If the client requests smaller
	delays, the server should not commit to sending notifications
	for that change event."

and

	"By granting a request for notifications, the server commits to
	delaying notifications to that client by no more than the
	notification delay which the client requested."

>> sounds good. 

Also, are the attributes expected to vary from one directory to the next
within a single filesystem?  Can they vary over time?

>> these attributes are per directory and can be different for different
directories. I don't expect them to change over time unless the
usage/workloads to that directory change in such a way that they need to
change.

Saadia
--b.

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

---

From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:41:32 -0500

> usage/workloads to that directory change in such a way that they need to

OK.  Could we say that in the text too?

--b.