Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Byte range delegations draft....

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT)

> >
> >Returning to the original point, though. Note that a file delegation
> >makes the byte range delegation pretty much redundant, so if the OPEN
> >returns the former then you probably just want to drop calling
> >DELEG_OPEN to save the server from having to track that extra state.
> >
> >  
> >
> So the byte range delegation is superior in that if you only need to 
> read part of the file, then a writer doesn't necessarily 
> recall the byte 
> range read delegation(s).  So for very large files, this 
> would be good.
> 
> Anyone know why the original file delegation model was for 
> whole files 
> and not byte ranges?

1. whole file delegations are simpler and also have obvious applications.
2. byte range delegations are more complex and have less obvious applications.
   (I still don't understand the rationale for them, or how they'll work in practice)
3. whole file delegations had an existance proof, CIFS, of working, and being useful.
   While DCE/DFS had them, ex-DFS developers weren't pushing them.
etc.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4