On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:38:26PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 19:26 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:20:07PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > As for the NFSv4 clientid, I can't see how you would ever want to use > > > anything other than the init->utsname(), since the requirement is only > > > that the clientid string be unique and preserved across reboots. The > > > server isn't allowed to interpret the contents of the clientid string. > > > Ditto for the RPCSEC_GSS machine creds that are used to establish the > > > clientid. > > > > If people eventually expect to be able to, say, migrate a container to > > another host while using an nfs mount as their storage, then they'd need > > the name to be that of the container, not of the host. > > Why? > > > Obviously we'd also need to ensure the container got its own nfsv4 > > client state, etc., etc., and it sounds like we're far from that. > > Again, why? Are you seriously proposing a plan to transport all NFS and > locking state directly from one kernel to another? If people seem to think they can do live process and container migration: http://ols.fedoraproject.org/OLS/Reprints-2008/mirkin-reprint.pdf then moving the NFS state strikes me as not the greatest of their troubles. I'm not volunteering! --b. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
