On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 12:40:05PM -0400, Talpey, Thomas wrote: > At 12:22 PM 6/9/2008, Jeff Layton wrote: > >That might be worth investigating, but sounds like it might cause problems > >with the services associated with IP addresses that are staying on the > >victim server. > > Jeff, I think you have many years of job security to look forward to, here. :-) > > Since you sent this to the NFSv4 list - is there any chance you're thinking > to not transparently take over IP addresses, but use NFSv4 locations and > referrals for these "migrations"? Yeah, definitely. We've a got a prototype and some other work in progress--hopefully there'll be something "real" in the coming months! There's some overlap with nfsv2/v3, though (not in this case, but in the need for lock migration, for example). And people really are using this floating-ip address stuff now, so anything we can do to make it more reliable or easier to use is welcome. --b. > Yes, I know some clients may not quite be > there yet. -- 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
