RE: Caching and callbacks

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

From: Boris Z. (boris@conley.com)
Date: 02/25/99-03:14:47 PM Z

Next message: David Robinson: "Re: comments on draft-shepler-nfsv4-02-01.html"
Previous message: Srini Bharadwaj: "Re: comments on draft-shepler-nfsv4-02-01.html"
Maybe in reply to: Boris Z.: "RE: Caching and callbacks"

Message-ID: <01BE60DC.74072710.boris@conley.com>
From: "Boris Z." <boris@conley.com>
Subject: RE: Caching and callbacks
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:14:47 -0500



On Thursday, February 25, 1999 12:59 PM, Carl Beame [SMTP:beame@mail1.tinet.ie] wrote:
> On Wed Feb 24 16:47:38 1999, Mike Eisler wrote:
> 
> 
> The overhead for op-locks is a single parameter in the OPEN call and a
> return parameter in the response. But the gains are tremendous when
> they are used.
> 

Or a single parameter in our LOCKxxx calls. You get much more by 
moving into byte range oplocks...

Next message: David Robinson: "Re: comments on draft-shepler-nfsv4-02-01.html"
Previous message: Srini Bharadwaj: "Re: comments on draft-shepler-nfsv4-02-01.html"
Maybe in reply to: Boris Z.: "RE: Caching and callbacks"

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 : 03/04/05-01:46:45 AM Z CST