On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:59:11PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 09:47:03AM -0400, Wendy Cheng wrote: >> >>> Bernd Schubert wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> on servers with heartbeat managed resources one rather often has >>>> the situation one exports different directories from different >>>> resources. >>>> >>>> It now may happen all resources are running on one host, but they >>>> can also run from different hosts. The situation gets even more >>>> complicated if the server is also a nfs client. >>>> >>>> In principle having different nfs resources works fine, only the >>>> statd state directory is a problem. Or in principle the statd >>>> concept at all. Actually we would need to have several instances of >>>> statd running using different directories. These then would have to >>>> be migrated from one server to the other on resource movement. >>>> However, as far I understand it, there does not even exist the >>>> basic concept for this, doesn't it? >>>> >>>> >>> The efforts have been attempted (to remedy this issue) and a complete >>> set of patches have been (kept) submitting for the past two years. >>> The patch acceptance progress is very slow (I guess people just >>> don't want to get bothered with cluster issues ?). >>> >> >> We definitely want to get this all figured out.... >> >> >>> Anyway, the kernel side has the basic infrastructure to handle the >>> problem (it stores the incoming clients IP address as part of its >>> book-keeping record) - just a little bit tweak will do the job. >>> However, the user side statd directory needs to get re-structured. I >>> didn't publish the user side directory structure script during my >>> last round of submission. Forking statd into multiple threads do not >>> solve all the issues. Check out: >>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/cluster-devel/2007-April/msg00028.html >>> >> >> So for basic v2/v3 failover, what remains is some statd -H scripts, and >> some form of grace period control? Is there anything else we're >> missing? >> >> >> > The submitted patch set is reasonably complete ... . > > There was another thought about statd patches though - mostly because of > the concerns over statd's responsiveness. It depended so much on network > status and clients' participations. I was hoping NFS V4 would catch up > by the time v2/v3 grace period patches got accepted into mainline > kernel. Ideally the v2/v3 lock reclaiming logic could use (or at least > did a similar implementation) the communication channel established by > v4 servers - that is, > > 1. Enable grace period as previous submitted patches on secondary server. > 2. Drop the locks on primary server (and chained the dropped locks into > a lock-list). What information exactly would be on that lock list? > 3. Send the lock-list via v4 communication channel (or similar > implementation) from primary server to backup server. > 4. Reclaim the lock base on the lock-list on backup server. So at this step it's the server itself reclaiming those locks, and you're talking about a completely transparent migration that doesn't look to the client like a reboot? My feeling has been that that's best done after first making sure we can handle the case where the client reclaims the locks, since the latter is easier, and is likely to involve at least some of the same work. I could be wrong. Exactly which data has to be transferred from the old server to the new? (Lock types, ranges, fh's, owners, and pid's, for established locks; do we also need to hand off blocking locks? Statd data still needs to be transferred. Ideally rpc reply caches. What else?) > In short, it would be nice to replace the existing statd lock reclaiming > logic with the above steps if all possible during active-active > failover. For reboot, on the other hand, should stay same as today's > statd logic without changes. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
