On 12/14/2011 11:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:26:00 -0500 >>>>>>> The data is stored using a sqlite database. The main reason for this is >>>>>>> that it takes care of most of the fussy details and atomicity concerns >>>>>>> of tracking the information on stable storage. >>>>>> This will make nfs-utils dependent on the sqlite database... Any idea >>>>>> what kinda of extra baggage this brings? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Depends on what you mean by "baggage". What is your concern? >>>> In Fedora doing a 'yum install sqlite' which would require >>>> a ton of other package needing to be install... The Required >>>> for nfs-utils is getting pretty long at this point... >>>> >>> >>> I don't think it pulls in that much. This is pretty minimal for dependencies: >>> >>> $ ldd /usr/lib/libsqlite3.so.0.8.6 >>> linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00e05000) >>> libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x001bd000) >>> libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x00769000) >>> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00e27000) >>> /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4e572000) >>> >>> I think the command-line tools have some dependency on ncurses and >>> readline and such, but I don't think it's that much really... >>> >>> In any case, perhaps it's time to split the nfs-utils packaging for >>> fedora into client and server pieces? Clients really only need >>> a few of the tools, but they can't install that on fedora without >>> getting all of the server pieces too. >> Yeah I thinking this is quickly becoming slippery slope... In the end I'm >> all for looking into using dbs instead of flat files but I'm just >> worrying about the size of nfs-utils footprint... Maybe unnecessarily >> >> Question, how would admin look at the list of client? Will that >> even be needed? >> > > Generally shouldn't be needed unless you're debugging. Today, we just > have a bunch of directories in the v4recoverydir with md5 hash names, > so I think moving to a DB is a step forward in this sense. Or possible an overkill?? How large do you expect these lists to grow? Also, from what the Nfsd4_server_recovery wiki says all that is really need is "stable storage". What makes sqlite more stable than a simple write() followed by an fsync()? > > There's a sqlite3 tool that you can use to attach to the DB file(s). > Then you can run sql commands against the tables in it. The DB layout > at this point is very simple, so this shouldn't be too hard. > > Note that I'm not dead-set on using sqlite for this if there's > something more suitable. What I really don't want to do though is to > reinvent the wheel. Storing info safely on stable storage is a solved > problem, IMO... > I took a look there does not appear to be any dependencies at all... So that worry was unfounded... Whats another dependency?? ;-) Lets just make sure using db is not overkill... then I'm good to go... steved. steved. -- 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
