On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:23:56PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >> I suggest that we only allow the reclaim of locks >> on the original address against which they were established. > > I'm not sure what that means. > > If a server stops responding, the v4.0 client has two choices: it can > either wait for the server to come back, and reclaim when it does. Or > if it supports failover it can go find another server and perform > reclaims over there. Honestly, I don't think that's possible in NFSv4.0. The richer information provided by fs_locations_info can allow the client to determine whether two servers share more than simply data. That information does not exist in NFSv4.0, so there's no way a client can expect that two servers lists in fs_locations results will always have the same NFSv4 state. Thus I believe that NFSv4.0 replication is limited to read-only data. But I have to go back and read that chapter of 3530 again. > I'm a little unclear how it does that, but I suppose it first tests > somehow to see whether its existing state is supported, and if not, it > establishes a new clientid with SETCLIENTID/SETCILENTID_CONFIRM using > its old name, and then attempts to reclaim. > > You're now requiring it *not* to do that if it happens that the servers > all rebooted in the meantime. How does it know that that's what > happened? > > Or maybe that's not what you want to require, I'm not sure. > > --b. > -- > 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 -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]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
