+Poornima ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Niels de Vos" <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 1:22:39 PM > Subject: Re: review request - Change the way client uuid is built > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Raghavendra Gowdappa wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > [1] might have implications across different components in the stack. Your > > reviews are requested. > > > > <commit-msg> > > > > rpc : Change the way client uuid is built > > > > Problem: > > Today the main users of client uuid are protocol layers, locks, leases. > > Protocolo layers requires each client uuid to be unique, even across > > connects and disconnects. Locks and leases on the server side also use > > the same client uid which changes across graph switches and across > > file migrations. Which makes the graph switch and file migration > > tedious for locks and leases. > > As of today lock migration across graph switch is client driven, > > i.e. when a graph switches, the client reassociates all the locks(which > > were associated with the old graph client uid) with the new graphs > > client uid. This means flood of fops to get and set locks for each fd. > > Also file migration across bricks becomes even more difficult as > > client uuid for the same client, is different on the other brick. > > > > The exact set of issues exists for leases as well. > > > > Hence the solution: > > Make the migration of locks and leases during graph switch and migration, > > server driven instead of client driven. This can be achieved by changing > > the format of client uuid. > > > > Client uuid currently: > > %s(ctx uuid)-%s(protocol client name)-%d(graph id)%s(setvolume > > count/reconnect count) > > > > Proposed Client uuid: > > "CTX_ID:%s-GRAPH_ID:%d-PID:%d-HOST:%s-PC_NAME:%s-RECON_NO:%s" > > - CTX_ID: This is will be constant per client. > > - GRAPH_ID, PID, HOST, PC_NAME(protocol client name), RECON_NO(setvolume > > count) > > remains the same. > > > > With this, the first part of the client uuid, CTX_ID+GRAPH_ID remains > > constant across file migration, thus the migration is made easier. > > > > Locks and leases store only the first part CTX_ID+GRAPH_ID as their > > client identification. This means, when the new graph connects, > > the locks and leases xlator should walk through their database > > to update the client id, to have new GRAPH_ID. Thus the graph switch > > is made server driven and saves a lot of network traffic. > > What is the plan to have the CTX_ID+GRAPH_ID shared over multiple gfapi > applications? This would be important for NFS-Ganesha failover where one > NFS-Ganesha process is stopped, and the NFS-Clients (by virtual-ip) move > to an other NFS-Ganesha server. > > Will there be a way to set CTX_ID(+GRAPH_ID?) through libgfapi? That > would allow us to add a configuration option to NFS-Ganesha and have the > whole NFS-Ganesha cluster use the same locking/leases. > > Thanks, > Niels > > > > > > Change-Id: Ia81d57a9693207cd325d7b26aee4593fcbd6482c > > BUG: 1369028 > > Signed-off-by: Poornima G <pgurusid@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Susant Palai <spalai@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > </commit-msg> > > > > [1] http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13901/10/ > > > > regards, > > Raghavendra > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-devel mailing list > > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
