On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:04:57 -0500 Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote:
> > With this particular issue, again, there are two irreconcilable desired > > behaviors: > > > > - when accessing a legacy/misbehaving fileserver, yield an error after > > N seconds of no progress > > > > - when accessing a legacy/misbehaving fileserver, hang forever in the > > face of no progress > > I don't think anyone wants this. I saw some emails to you today that sounded like someone wanted it :) But sure, some people may want something like that. Some people want hardmount. (Not saying we need an option for that at this time or anything, though.) > > I believe/assume what is being considered "right" is the latter > > option. > > ? I definitely heard some advocacy for this the last time we were arguing about this (how the fileserver-side should make this determination, which is true, but...). But yeah, this isn't what went in. > > And, although sometimes it seems like this idea is > > unfathomable to some people in the community, some people _do_ exist > > that do not place cache consistency at their highest priority. > > The problem there, to me, is only when those people wish to > participate in the global AFS namespace, which is a second issue here, > the "play nice or go home" issue. Well, I was talking about idledead stuff here, specifically client behavior, which isn't going to screw up another client. I think that matters much more when you're talking about server behavior, in which case, yes, certainly. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
