| To: | Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH-v2 0/5] add support for a lazytime mount option |
| From: | "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:11:45 -0500 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20141124115727.GA19918@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1416675267-2191-1-git-send-email-tytso@xxxxxxx> <20141124090755.GA28534@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141124115727.GA19918@xxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 06:57:27AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > If we want to be paranoid, we handle i_version updates non-lazily; I > can see arguments in favor of that. > > Ext4 only enables MS_I_VERSION if the user asks for it explicitly, so > it wouldn't cause me any problems. However, xfs and btrfs enables it > by default, so that means xfs and btrfs wouldn't see the benefits of > lazytime (if you're going to have to push I_VERSION to disk, you might > as well update the [acm]time while you're at it). I've always thought > that we *should* do is to only enable it if nfsv4 is serving the file > system, and not otherwise, though, which would also give us > consistency across all the file systems. I guess you need to worry about the case where you shutdown nfsd, modify a file, then restart nfsd--you don't want a client to miss the modification in that case. --b. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] xfs: overflow in xfs_iomap_eof_align_last_fsb, Peter Watkins |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Cadeaux de fin d'annÃe, Absolu WooD |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH-v2 0/5] add support for a lazytime mount option, Theodore Ts'o |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH-v2 0/5] add support for a lazytime mount option, Theodore Ts'o |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |