* Andrew R. Reiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020515 09:54] wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > :* Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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?
I'm not a coda expert so I wouldn't know, but I wasn't professing to have invented something profound by suggesting a client cache. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
