On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Benny Halevy wrote: > On 2012-06-11 13:44, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> On 06/11/2012 12:56 PM, Benny Halevy wrote: >> >>> >>> It will for recovering files striped with RAID as the LAYOUTRETURN >>> provides the server with a reliable "commit point" where it knows >>> exactly what was written successfully to each stripe and can make >>> the most efficient decision about recovering it (if needed). >>> >>> Allowing I/O to the stripe post LAYOUTRETURN may result in data >>> corruption due to parity inconsistency. >>> >> >> >> The fact of the matter is that we - object guys - Which care about >> LAYOUTRETURN the most, have neglected to notice and fix the current >> situation which is even worse than After Andy's patch. Which will >> send multiple LAYOUTRETURNs on the same layout, and might still >> continue IO on returned layouts. >> >> Thanks Andy for testing and highlighting the current problem, >> I will prioritized this development internally at Panasas and >> will work on a solution ASAP. I hope one that will satisfy >> all. >> >> Basically my plan is to postpone the LAYOUTRETURN send to >> when the segment is last referenced, if a flag was set to >> do so, and make sure reference counting is done proper, so >> after flag set the last IO_done will send the LAYOUTRETURN. >> >> If that is OK with all I hope? > > Sounds OK to me. Thanks! Sounds fine to me as well, for LAYOUTRETURN during normal behavior. -->Andy > > Benny > >> >>> Benny >>> >> >> >> Thanks >> Boaz >> -- 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
