Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400 | Subject | Misc NFSv4 (was Re: statfs() / statvfs() syscall ballsup...) | From | Trond Myklebust <> |
| |
>>>>> " " == Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> writes:
> Trond Myklebust wrote: >> Sure. We might even try actually implementing leases on NFSv4 >> for delegated files.
> That would be nice. (Aside: Can NFSv4 do anything like > dnotify, or am I restricted to, in effect, keeping many files > open to detect changes in any of them?)
Delegations for directories are in the pipeline for the next minor revision of the protocol (NFSv4.1). Delegations are such a new feature to NFS that it was decided to restrict them to files only to give us time to learn how best to use them.
I can't tell as of yet whether or not the model chosen will include all the features of dnotify (for instance recall in case the attributes change on a subfile is a subject of hot debate), but certainly some of us are pushing for something like this.
> Generally NFSv4 sounds like the way to go. Should I be > recommending it to all my friends yet, is the implementation > ready for that?
The client implementation in 2.6.0 is still lacking several important features, including locking, ACLs, delegation support and recovery of state (in case of server reboot or network partitions). I'm hoping Andrew/Linus will allow me to send updates once the early 2.6.x codefreeze period is over.
That said, I definitely encourage people to test out the existing code for stability, and I will be offering an 'NFS_ALL' series with those features that are missing from the main tree as and when I judge they are approaching release quality.
Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |