Re: [nfsv4] layoutcommits and file layout

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:01 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: 
> On 2011-01-03 16:40, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 16:21 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote: 
> >> On 2010-12-17 01:07, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:21:21AM -0500, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have a files implementation which wants to receive LAYOUTCOMMIT when a client is finished with a layout.  It was my clear understanding from rfc5661 that we could expect this behavior.
> >>>
> >>> Care to post it to the list?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't know what Matt's server is doing but the fundamental problem is
> >> manifested with extending a file with parallel DS writes.
> >> Assuming that the DS writes are executed in arbitrary order,
> >> exposing the file length before LAYOUTCOMMIT can cause
> >> a concurrent reader to read a hole.  Although locking can
> >> solve this case, day-to-day applications that work well over
> >> local filesystem and legacy NFS may break because of this.
> > 
> > ...and this differs from ordinary NFS writes exactly how?
> > 
> > Both cached and uncached (i.e. O_DIRECT) writes can and will be flushed
> > to disk in entirely random order when writing to the MDS. If you have a
> > parallel reader on another client (or even on the same client in the
> > case of O_DIRECT), and want it to see accurate data, then use locking.
> > If not, you will see holes and other strangeness.
> > 
> > IOW: There are no 'day-to-day applications that work well over legacy
> > NFS' that rely on this behaviour.
> > 
> 
> Assuming the client writes sequentially (over tcp) the writes will
> practically be processed in order into the server's cache so with
> no crashes in the mix a parallel reader will see no holes.
> I'd really like the following scenario to work over pNFS with
> no hassles:
> 	"some app >> foo" on one client, and
> 	"tail -f foo" on another

No, that doesn't work today! Believe me, I get the "bug reports"...

There is no point in trying to add properties to pNFS that don't exist
with ordinary NFS.

Trond
-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux