What is the scope of the proposed invalidation? ----- "Simon Wilkinson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The critical thing is that we should be invalidating the cache > whenever an RPC that changes server state is failed due to a timeout. > We've already discussed adding this behaviour to deal with the idle > dead mess - we just need to add it elsewhere. > > Then, there is an additional question - is the hit you take from cache > invalidation worth terminating a call for? That's going to be a trade > off, but I suspect that the current behaviour just doesn't allow a > server enough time to tidy up. > -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
