Andrew Deason <[email protected]> writes: > Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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. If you abandon and retry operations on a locked vnode and hence tie up more and more server threads waiting on the same vnode, you will eventually cause a file server meltdown, which most definitely *does* screw up other clients. If you retry abandoned write operations on a read-write volume without ensuring cache consistency with the server, you will create data inconsistency issues that can result in file corruption, which most definitely *does* screw up other clients. If you restrain idledead to only read-only volumes with replicas to which it is reasonable to fall back, then I agree, you're not going to screw up other clients. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
