Subject: re: [nfsv4] sleepy clients

From: Brent Callaghan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:37:14 -0700

Rick wrote:

> I admit your answer wasn't clear to me? If it is a hint for the server
> to hold onto state as long as practicable, I support that, but feel  
> the
> server should do that for all clients.

Yes.  From your response and Dave's, it seems like it's already
common practice for servers to go gently on client lease expiration.
Preserving client state until a conflict occurs seems like a good way
to avoid unnecessary pain - for all clients.  If servers implement this
policy anyway - then OP_ZZZZ isn't needed.

I agree that a sleeping client shouldn't expect any guarantee that
its state is preserved upon waking - it should be prepared to
recover if necessary.

Let sleeping clients lie ......

	Brent

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

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:49:27 -0500

> policy anyway - then OP_ZZZZ isn't needed.

As I see it, OP_ZZZZ has one particular benefit: it tells the server not
to bother with callbacks to this clientID -- on conflict just revoke.

It also begs the server to keep state for as long as possible, but
servers should try to anyways.

Nico
--