Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:53:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@ns.aus.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: File locking, closes and performance in a distributed filesystemenv Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020515125325.98224B-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20020515155101.GF1585@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: :* Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> [020515 01:36] wrote: :> Alfred Perlstein wrote: :> > As Terry stated you can't do that, however you could cache that the :> > VNODE has a lock, that would reduce the requirement for calling the :> > ADVLOCK VOP. :> You'd really have to know when the lock list went to NULL, to get :> any benefit out of it, since locking would still end up being per-file :> sticky. You could post-check after every successful unlock... but to :> cache the remote state would mean another RPC to ask for locks, which :> would just be front-loading the expense, instead of back-loading it. : :[snip] : :He could also maintain a local cache of this per vnode, basically :maintain a mirror of the lock list locally in order to see if a remote :op must be done. Isn't this sorta like coda? -- Andrew R. Reiter arr@watson.org arr@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020515125325.98224B-100000>