> -----Original Message----- > From: Trond Myklebust [mailto:trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:41 PM > To: Muntz, Daniel > Cc: andros@xxxxxxxxxx; sjoshi@xxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: 4.1 client - LAYOUTCOMMIT & close > > On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 15:20 -0400, Daniel.Muntz@xxxxxxx wrote: > > The COMMIT to the DS, ttbomk, commits data on the DS. I see it as > > orthogonal to updating the metadata on the MDS (but perhaps > I'm wrong). > > As sjoshi@bluearc mentioned, the LAYOUTCOMMIT provides a > synchronization > > point, so even if the non-clustered server does not want to update > > metadata on every DS I/O, the LAYOUTCOMMIT could also be a > trigger to > > execute whatever synchronization mechanism the implementer > wishes to put > > in the control protocol. > > As far as I'm aware, there are no exceptions in RFC5661 that > would allow > pNFS servers to break the rule that any visible change to the > data must > be atomically accompanied with a change attribute update. As we've discussed before, until a LAYOUTCOMMIT occurs, new data may or may not be visible to clients. Suppose my server takes the approach that a COMMIT guarantees that data is written to a persistent intent log in NVRAM. On LAYOUTCOMMIT, file data is updated from NVRAM and there is a change attribute update (atomic). A client that does not issue LAYOUTCOMMITs will not be able to write data. If every WRITE to a DS has to atomically update metadata on the MDS, perhaps we could improve performance by co-locating data and metadata on a single server [1/2 :-)] > > As I see it, if your server allows one client to read data > that may have > been modified by another client that holds a WRITE layout for > that range > then (since that is a visible data change) it should provide a change > attribute update irrespective of whether or not a > LAYOUTCOMMIT has been > sent. > If your MDS is incapable of determining whether or not data > has changed > on the DSes, then it should probably recall the WRITE layout > if someone > tries to read data that may have been modified. Said server > also needs a > strategy for determining if a data change occurred if the client that > held the WRITE layout died before it could send the LAYOUTCOMMIT. Sounds like you're suggesting treating layouts as capabilities in the files case, which is one way to solve the problem. Is anyone doing this, or are the files implementations still all treating layouts as simply data locators? > > Cheers > Trond > > > -Dan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andy Adamson [mailto:andros@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:38 AM > > > To: Muntz, Daniel > > > Cc: sjoshi@xxxxxxxxxxx; linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: 4.1 client - LAYOUTCOMMIT & close > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 2010, at 5:46 PM, <Daniel.Muntz@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > By "extremely lame server" I assume you mean any pNFS > server that > > > > doesn't have a cluster FS on the back end. > > > > > > No, I mean a pNFS file layout type server that depends upon > > > the 'hint' > > > of file size given by LAYOUTCOMMIT. This does not mean > that the file > > > system has to be a cluster FS. > > > > > > If COMMIT through MDS is set, the MDS to DS protocol (be it a > > > cluster > > > FS or not) ensures the data is "commited" on the DSs. > > > LAYOUTCOMMIT is > > > not needed. > > > > > > If COMMITs are sent to the DSs (or FILE_SYNC writes), then > > > the MDS to > > > DS protocol (be it a cluster FS or not) should kick off a > > > back-end DS > > > to MDS communication to update the file size on the MDS. > > > > > > What I consider an 'extremely lame pNFS file layout > server' is one > > > that requires COMMITs to the DS and then depends upon the > > > LAYOUTCOMMIT > > > to communicate the commited data size to the MDS. > > > > > > -->Andy > > > > > > > > > > So while this might work > > > > well for NetApp (as long as NetApp never ships a non-clustered > > > > pNFS), it > > > > might break others, or at least severely impact their > > > performance. > > > > For > > > > example, will the Solaris pNFS server work correctly without > > > > LAYOUTCOMMIT? IMHO, the client MUST issue the appropriate > > > > LAYOUTCOMMIT, > > > > but the server is free to handle it as a no-op if the server > > > > implementation does not need to utilize the payload. > > > > > > > > -Dan > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >> [mailto:linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Andy Adamson > > > >> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:41 AM > > > >> To: Sandeep Joshi > > > >> Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > >> Subject: Re: 4.1 client - LAYOUTCOMMIT & close > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Jul 1, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Sandeep Joshi wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Sandeep > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> In certain cases, I don't see layoutcommit on a file > at all even > > > >>> after doing many writes. > > > >> > > > >> FYI: > > > >> > > > >> You should not be paying attention to layoutcommits - > they have no > > > >> value for the file layout type. > > > >> > > > >> From RFC 5661: > > > >> > > > >> "The LAYOUTCOMMIT operation commits chages in the layout > > > represented > > > >> by the current filehandle, client ID (derived from the > > > session ID in > > > >> the preceding SEQUENCE operation), byte-range, and stateid." > > > >> > > > >> For the block layout type, this sentence has meaning in that > > > >> there is > > > >> a layoutupdate4 payload that enumerates the blocks that > > > have changed > > > >> state from being 'handed out' to being 'written'. > > > >> > > > >> The file layout type has no layoutupdate4 payload, and the > > > >> layout does > > > >> not change due to writes, and thus the LAYOUTCOMMIT call > > > is useless. > > > >> > > > >> The only field in the LAYOUTCOMMIT4args that might possibly > > > >> be useful > > > >> is the loca_last_write_offset which tells the server what > > > the client > > > >> thinks is the EOF of the file after WRITE. It is an > extremely lame > > > >> server (file layout type server) that depends upon > clients for this > > > >> info. > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Client side operations: > > > >>> > > > >>> open > > > >>> write(s) > > > >>> close > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On server side (observed operations): > > > >>> > > > >>> open > > > >>> layoutget's > > > >>> close > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> But, I do not see laycommit at all. In terms data written > > > >> by client > > > >>> it is about 4-5MB. > > > >>> > > > >>> When does client issue laycommit? > > > >> > > > >> The latest linux client sends a layout commit when the > VFS does a > > > >> super_operations.write_inode call which happens when the > > > metadata of > > > >> an inode needs updating. We are seriously considering > removing the > > > >> layoutcommit call from the file layout client. > > > >> > > > >> -->Andy > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> regards, > > > >>> > > > >>> Sandeep > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> 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 > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> 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 > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > -- 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
