xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 10/18] nfsd: implement pNFS layout recalls

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nfsd: implement pNFS layout recalls
From: Tom Haynes <thomas.haynes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:59:44 -0800
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150106174214.GB16200@xxxxxx>
References: <1420561721-9150-1-git-send-email-hch@xxxxxx> <1420561721-9150-11-git-send-email-hch@xxxxxx> <20150106172508.GE12067@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150106174214.GB16200@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:42:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This bothers me a little: cl_addr is just the address that the
> > exchange_id came from.  In theory there's no one-to-one relationship
> > between NFSv4 clients and IP addresses.  Is it likely the iscsi traffic
> > could use a different interface than the MDS traffic?
> > 
> > If this is the best we can do, then maybe this should at least be
> > documented.
> 
> The pNFS block fencing protocol bothers me a lot, it seems like very
> little thought went into that part of the standard.
> 
> I proposed a new SCSI layout type that fixes those issues on the
> NFSv4 WG list, but there's been zero interest in it:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg13469.html
> 

I don't know if I would say zero interest or normal apathy on the
NFSv4 WG list to replying outside of the IETF meeting venue.

I'd certainly like to see it go forward.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>