From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Martin Waitz <tali@admingilde.org>
Cc: Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>,
Clemens Schwaighofer <cs@tequila.co.jp>,
nfs@lists.sourceforge.net,
Linux filesystem caching discussion list
<linux-cachefs@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:30:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1097508639.20033.12.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041011142329.GJ4072@admingilde.org>
På må , 11/10/2004 klokka 16:23, skreiv Martin Waitz:
> hi :)
>
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 07:22:13AM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> > The 'fscache' flag will be coming along with the nfs4 support, since
> > nfs4 mounting code does not have an open (unused) mounting flag....
>
> is such a flag even neccessary?
> The way I see fscache is that its operations will be no-ops anyway if you
> haven't mounted any backing cache.
You may not want to run cachefs on *all* your NFS partitions. It will
slow you down on those partitions that have lots of cache contention.
That said, David & co.: why did you choose not to use something similar
to the Solaris syntax for cachefs? The "layered filesystem" syntax has
the advantage that it would avoid entirely the need to change the NFS
mount syntax, and would make it easier to port cachefs to cifs etc.
Cheers,
Trond
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Martin Waitz <tali@admingilde.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux filesystem caching discussion list
<linux-cachefs@redhat.com>,
nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>,
Clemens Schwaighofer <cs@tequila.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:30:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1097508639.20033.12.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041011142329.GJ4072@admingilde.org>
P=E5 m=E5 , 11/10/2004 klokka 16:23, skreiv Martin Waitz:
> hi :)
>=20
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 07:22:13AM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> > The 'fscache' flag will be coming along with the nfs4 support, since
> > nfs4 mounting code does not have an open (unused) mounting flag....
>=20
> is such a flag even neccessary?
> The way I see fscache is that its operations will be no-ops anyway if y=
ou
> haven't mounted any backing cache.
You may not want to run cachefs on *all* your NFS partitions. It will
slow you down on those partitions that have lots of cache contention.
That said, David & co.: why did you choose not to use something similar
to the Solaris syntax for cachefs? The "layered filesystem" syntax has
the advantage that it would avoid entirely the need to change the NFS
mount syntax, and would make it easier to port cachefs to cifs etc.
Cheers,
Trond
--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
Linux-cachefs@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-11 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-04 20:45 [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS Steve Dickson
2004-10-04 20:45 ` Steve Dickson
2004-10-04 21:53 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-10-04 21:53 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-10-05 10:01 ` David Howells
2004-10-05 10:01 ` David Howells
2004-10-08 4:36 ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2004-10-08 4:36 ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2004-10-08 11:22 ` Steve Dickson
2004-10-08 11:22 ` Steve Dickson
2004-10-08 15:39 ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2004-10-11 14:23 ` Martin Waitz
2004-10-11 14:23 ` Martin Waitz
2004-10-11 15:30 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2004-10-11 15:30 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-10-11 20:31 ` accessing/modifiying the nfs share files as different users bruce
2004-10-13 10:40 ` [Linux-cachefs] Re: [PATCH] NFS using CacheFS David Howells
2004-10-13 10:40 ` David Howells
2004-10-11 15:18 ` [Linux-cachefs] " David Howells
2004-10-11 15:18 ` David Howells
2004-10-08 9:02 ` [Linux-cachefs] " David Howells
2004-10-08 9:02 ` David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1097508639.20033.12.camel@lade.trondhjem.org \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=SteveD@redhat.com \
--cc=cs@tequila.co.jp \
--cc=linux-cachefs@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nfs@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tali@admingilde.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.