[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [Linux-cachefs] Cachefs fails to take effect on nfs4?
- From: Rince <rincebrain gmail com>
- To: Linux filesystem caching discussion list <linux-cachefs redhat com>
- Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond Myklebust netapp com>
- Subject: Re: [Linux-cachefs] Cachefs fails to take effect on nfs4?
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 11:32:16 -0400
It's unclear - it seems like all settings EXCEPT fsc are being
propagated to the submounts, so...
Compare:
manticore.acm.jhu.edu:/scratch /scratch nfs4
rw,relatime,vers=4,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,nointr,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=128.220.70.71,fsc,addr=128.220.70.62
0 0
manticore.acm.jhu.edu:/scratch/rercola /scratch/rercola nfs4
rw,relatime,vers=4,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,nointr,proto=tcp,port=0,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=128.220.70.71,addr=128.220.70.62
0 0
- Rich
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM, David Howells <dhowells redhat com> wrote:
> Rince <rincebrain gmail com> wrote:
>
>> Oh look.
>> v4 80dc463e 801 0:25 c8654208da0d3669 yes
>> v4 80dc463e 801 0:29 c2802708a327444c no
>
> That answers that, then. The fsc option isn't being propagated to submounts.
>
> The question is: should it be? Or should it be done via some out-of-band way
> of configuring this? The latter is on my to-do list anyway for finer grained
> control.
>
> David
>
> --
> Linux-cachefs mailing list
> Linux-cachefs redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
>
--
I need to discuss BUY-BACK PROVISIONS with at least six studio SLEAZEBALLS!!
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]