leases revisited was RE: Some issues with stateid's

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Mike Eisler (mre@eng.sun.com)
Date: 11/03/99-09:23:10 PM Z 

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 19:23:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Eisler <mre@eng.sun.com>
Subject: leases revisited was RE: Some issues with stateid's
Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.941685790.7843.mre@eng.sun.com>

> It occurred to me that this issue could be addressed by making lease
> times a statement about client behaviour rather than server
> behaviour.  It is a small change but it may help clarify things.
> 
> Rather than saying:
>    The server can revoke locks that have not been renewed within the
>    lease time - so the client better renew pretty often
> we could say:
>    The server can do whatever it likes (because we all know that it
>    can), but that if the client endevours to renew at least every
>    'leasetime', then the server will do it's best-effort to maintain
>    the locks for the client.

This either semantically the same, or it is semantically vastly different.
if the former, I see no need to churn the specification. If the latter,
I see no need to churn the specification without implementation experience.

Thus far, every objection made to the locking protocol has been successfully
rebutted by David Robinson, and its been going on for about a year.
I think we should leave it alone, until we real flaw is proven by experiment.

	-mre

	-mre

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:47:49 AM Z CST