On Thu, 04 Jul 2024, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > > On Jul 3, 2024, at 11:36 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 03:24:18PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > >> IMO the design document should, as part of the problem statement, > >> explain why a pNFS-only solution is not workable. > > > > Sure, I can add that. > > > > I explained the NFSv3 requirement when we discussed at LSF. > > You explained it to me in a private conversation, although > there was a lot of "I don't know yet" in that discussion. > > It needs to be (re)explained in a public forum because > reviewers keep bringing this question up. > > I hope to see more than just "NFSv3 is in the mix". There > needs to be some explanation of why it is necessary to > support NFSv3 without the use of pNFS flexfile. > My perspective if "of course NFSv3". This core idea is to accelerate loop-back NFS and unless we have decided to deprecate NFSv3 (as I think we have decided to deprecate NFSv2), then NFSv3 support should be on the table. If v3 support turns out to be particularly burdensome, then it's not a "must have" for me, but it isn't at all clear to me that a pNFS approach would have fewer problems - only different problems. Just my 2c worth. NeilBrown
