How to manage shared persistent local caching (FS-Cache) with NFS?
David Howells
dhowells at redhat.com
Wed Dec 5 13:03:58 EST 2007
Jon Masters <jonathan at jonmasters.org> wrote:
> I think the shared superblock approach is the right one, but I'm a
> little concerned that there would now be different behavior for fscache
> and non-cached setups. Not sure of any better idea though.
The behaviour varies a bit anyway because there's a cache...
> > The R/O mount flag can be dealt with by moving readonlyness into the
> > vfsmount rather than having it a property of the superblock. The
> > superblock would then be read-only only if all its vfsmounts are also
> > read-only.
>
> Given that, how many connection parameters are there that are likely to
> actually differ on the same client, talking to the same server? Really?
I don't have figures on that, but I do know people have complained about it
for non-cached conditions.
> You could store the table in a NIS map, for example, and a udev rule or
> similar could trigger to load it later.
My point was meant to be that the presence and coverage of a cache is more
likely to reflect the client machine than would the NIS map for the NFS
automounts. You wouldn't necessarily want to store this table in NIS.
David
More information about the NFSv4
mailing list