[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-nfsv4
Subject:    Re: [nfsv4] Returning NFS4ERR_CB_PATH_DOWN
From:       Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler () sun ! com>
Date:       2005-05-03 22:59:34
Message-ID: 20050503225934.GB1209 () sheplap ! Central ! Sun ! COM
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:28:42AM -0700, Khan, Saadia wrote:
> > so it seems like just because the callback path is down, the server
> > should not revoke delegations, so in case the server finds out that
> > the callback path is down because it is in the middle of recalling the
> > delegation, it probably needs to wait for a renew from that client so
> > that it can send it NFS4ERR_CB_PATH_DOWN and then wait for atleast one
> > lease period before revoking the delegation. 
> 
> That's how I read it.  With one exception: the "at least one lease
> period" requirement is only for the length of time the server has to
> wait for the client to send the renew that the server replies
> CB_PATH_DOWN to:
> 
> >	The server SHOULD give the client a reasonable time to return
> >	its delegations to the server before revoking the client's
> >	delegations.
> 
> Once it's gotten the chance to return CB_PATH_DOWN, the time to wait is
> just described as "a reasonable period":

I agree.  The server can extend the period if it observes the client
making a reasonable effort to return delegations (just as it would if
a CB_RECALL has been serviced and there are WRITEs being done for the
file).

Spencer

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]