Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Sleepy clients

From: Jim Rees <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:09:38 -0400

OP_ZZZ seems like the top of the very high slippery slop of a client
  working in a 'disconnected' mode... There's a nasty tar pit at the
  bottom of that slop..

I disagree.  I've been running disconnected afs on my laptop for ten years
and it makes me very happy.

However, I think it's important to put the burden of disconnection on the
client, not the server.  There should be no OP_ZZZ.  If the client wants to
disconnect, it must be prepared to suffer the consequences.  In most cases
that will mean it wants to return all resources to the server and be
prepared to reclaim them on reconnection.

Otherwise the server is left holding the bag for state that it can't
reclaim, or at least can't know how long it must wait to reclaim.

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

---

From: Robert Gordon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:17:52 -0500

On Aug 26, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Jim Rees wrote:

>
> I disagree.  I've been running disconnected afs on my laptop for ten
> years and it makes me very happy.

Ahh, cool. So are there AFS protocol specific items that are conducive
to a disconnected mode, and what (if anything) would NFSv4 be missing
in order to match the AFS feature ?

-- Robert