Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:45:04 -0400 | From | "J. Bruce Fields" <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps |
| |
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:43:10PM -0700, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > >> Is there any objection to the mount option I am proposing? > > > > I have none. I doubt I'd use it as it would be too expensive on system > > performance for some of my boxes, while having an incrementing value is > > cheap. > > > > I don't see the two as conflicting - in fact the bits you need to do the > > mount option are the bits you also need to do the counter version as > > well. One fixes ordering at no real cost, the other adds high res > > timestamps, both are useful. > > A mount option could also allow a choice of timestamp resolutions: > > Traditional (i.e., fast) > Alan Cox NFS hack (a tad slower but should fix NFS) > High-res time (slowest but most accurate) > > I will work on a patch this week (weekend at the latest).
I kind of hate to have mount options that are required for nfs exports to work correctly; it soon makes things too complicated for users to realiably get right, so distributions end up setting them, and then we all end up taking the performance tradeoff anyway.
But a mount-option-based version may at least be useful for further experiments.
--b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |