[dcmf] [PATCH 1/1] Issue 4362: Honor the romio_ds_write and romio_ds_read hints.

[Bob Cernohous]

That's basically the answer that I got from an original developer:  "we 
were actively considering support for NFS and GPFS, both have client side 
caching".


Rob Ross <rross at mcs.anl.gov> wrote on 02/08/2008 08:39:34 PM:

> My guess is that it's the "lowest common denominator", that it works 
> for both GPFS (albeit with unnecessary locking calls) and for NFS, 
> which are the two configurations for which IBM is interested.
> 
> Rob
> 
> On Feb 8, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cernohous wrote:
> 
> >
> > robl at mcs.anl.gov (Robert Latham) wrote on 02/08/2008 04:22:17 PM:
> >
> > >
> > > Do you know why ad_bgl is based off of ad_nfs and not ad_ufs?  The
> > > aggressive locking in ad_nfs is an attempt to flush client-side
> > > caches, but shouldn't be needed for other file systems.
> >
> > No, sorry.  I'm pretty new to romio.  I'll try to find some answers
> > (and educate myself on 
> > this)._______________________________________________
> > dcmf mailing list
> > dcmf at lists.anl-external.org
> > http://lists.anl-external.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dcmf
> > http://dcmf.anl-external.org/wiki
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alcf.anl.gov/pipermail/dcmf/attachments/20080211/4ce6ce26/attachment.htm>