On 09/30/2013 09:34 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 20:49 +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On 09/30/2013 08:02 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 19:48 +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On 09/30/2013 07:44 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 19:17 +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
It would be nice if there would be way if the file system would get a
hint that the target file is supposed to be copy of another file. That
way distributed file systems could also create the target-file with the
correct meta-information (same storage targets as in-file has).
Well, if we cannot agree on that, file system with a custom protocol at
least can detect from 0 to SSIZE_MAX and then reset metadata. I'm not
sure if this would work for pNFS, though.
splice() does not create new files. What you appear to be asking for
lies way outside the scope of that system call interface.
Sorry I know, definitely outside the scope of splice, but in the context
of offloaded file copies. So the question is, what is the best way to
address/discuss that?
Why does it need to be addressed in the first place?
An offloaded copy is still not efficient if different storage
servers/targets used by from-file and to-file.
So?
mds1: orig-file
oss1/target1: orig-chunk1
mds1: target-file
ossN/targetN: target-chunk1
clientN: Performs the copy
Ideally, orig-chunk1 and target-chunk1 are on the same server and same
target. Copy offload then even could done from the underlying fs,
similiar as local splice.
If different ossN servers are used copies still have to be done over
network by these storage servers, although the client only would need to
initiate the copy. Still faster, but also not ideal.
What is preventing an application from retrieving and setting this
information using standard libc functions such as fstat()+open(), and
supplemented with libattr attr_setf/getf(), and libacl acl_get_fd/set_fd
where appropriate?
At a minimum this requires network and metadata overhead. And while I'm
working on FhGFS now, I still wonder what other file system need to do -
for example Lustre pre-allocates storage-target files on creating a
file, so file layout changes mean even more overhead there.
The problem you are describing is limited to a narrow set of storage
architectures. If copy offload using splice() doesn't make sense for
those architectures, then don't implement it for them.
But it _does_ make sense. The file system just needs a hint that a
splice copy is going to come up.
You might be able to provide ioctls() to do these special hinted file
creations for those filesystems that need it, but the vast majority
don't, and you shouldn't enforce it on them.
And exactly for that we need a standard - it does not make sense if each
and every distributed file system implements its own
ioctl/libattr/libacl interface for that.
Anyway, if we could agree on to use libattr or libacl to teach the file
system about the upcoming splice call I would be fine.
libattr and libacl are generic libraries that exist to manipulate xattrs
and acls. They do not need to contain Lustre-specific code.
pNFS, FhGFS, Lustre, Ceph, etc., all of them shall implement their own
interface? And userspace needs to address all of them differently?
I'm just asking for something like a vfs ioctl SPLICE_META_COPY (sorry,
didn't find a better name yet), which would take in-file-path and
out-file-path and allow the file system to create out-file-path with the
same meta-layout as in-file-path. And it would need some flags, such as
AUTO (file system decides if it makes sense to do a local copy) and
FORCE (always try a local copy).
Thanks,
Bernd
--
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
