Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 23:24:40 +0200 From: "Ronald Klop" <ronald-lists@klop.ws> To: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, "Rick Macklem" <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Subject: Re: RFC: should an incremental reload of exports for mountd be optional? Message-ID: <op.z2tu3eg9kndu52@sjakie> In-Reply-To: <QB1PR01MB2643E5186098E2AF14934866DD190@QB1PR01MB2643.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <QB1PR01MB2643E5186098E2AF14934866DD190@QB1PR01MB2643.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 31 May 2019 23:50:10 +0200, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > Hi, > > I have created a patch for PR#237860 that improves the time it takes to > reload > the exports file(s) for an NFS file server from seconds->milliseconds by > only doing > system calls for the changes to the exports file(s). (Assumes each > reload includes > changes to only a small fraction of the entries.) > > I made it a non-default option of "-I", but asomers@ asked why it needed > to be > optional. > > Basically, I made it optional because I felt the patch might still be > buggy and not > handle some case of an exports file change that I missed. > > However, I can see the argument of making it non-optional (or optional > but enabled > by default) so that sysadmins don't need to add "-I" to avoid long > periods where the > nfsd threads are suspended. > If it is broken, the deamon would need to be restarted to do a full > reload, but that > would also be the case if a sysadmin specified the "-I" option. > > So, the question is... "do you think this should be an option or just > always enabled?". always enabled +1 > Thanks , rick > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.z2tu3eg9kndu52>