From: Juan Gomez (juang@us.ibm.com)
Date: 05/31/02-01:58:36 PM Z
Subject: Re: Replication/Migration conference call minutes, 5/29 Message-ID: <OF9EEEF7BC.58AE128A-ON88256BCA.0067D5CD@boulder.ibm.com> From: "Juan Gomez" <juang@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:58:36 -0700 My vote is for transferring as much state as possible and making these events as transparent to the client as possible; following this path will result in lower transfer latencies. Juan |---------+----------------------------------> | | Robert Thurlow | | | <Robert.Thurlow@eng.sun| | | .com> | | | Sent by: | | | owner-nfsv4-wg@sunroof.| | | eng.sun.com | | | | | | | | | 05/31/02 09:59 AM | | | Please respond to | | | Robert Thurlow | | | | |---------+----------------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> | | cc: Robert Thurlow <Robert.Thurlow@eng.sun.com>, nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com | | Subject: Re: Replication/Migration conference call minutes, 5/29 | | | | | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| ... > This doesn't solve the problem of transferring state, but > no-one knows how to solve that problem anyway right now. As a first > attempt, we've said we're content with migrations that look to clients > like server reboots. Opinions vary, but state transfer is still of interest to some as a way to get the best transparency. ... Rob T
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:49:47 AM Z CST