Re: [PATCH/RFC] Add simple backoff logic when reconnecting to a server that recently initiated a connection close

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

 



On Mon, 03 Mar 2014, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> 
> On Mar 3, 2014, at 11:13, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:29:56 -0500
> > Scott Mayhew <smayhew@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> From 2e3902fc0c66bda360a8e40e3e64d82e312a20d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:23:50 -0500
> >> Subject: [PATCH] sunrpc: reintroduce xprt->shutdown with a new purpose (option
> >> 2)
> >> 
> >> If a server is behaving pathologically and accepting our connections
> >> only to close the socket on the first RPC operation it receives, then
> >> we should probably delay when trying to reconnect.
> >> 
> >> This patch reintroduces the xprt->shutdown field (this time as two
> >> bits).  Previously this field was used to indicate that the transport
> >> was in the process of being shutdown, but now it will just be used to
> >> indicate that a shutdown was initiated by the server.
> >> 
> >> If the server closes the connection 3 times without us having received
> >> an RPC reply in the interim, then we'll delay before attempting to
> >> connect again.
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h |  3 ++-
> >> net/sunrpc/clnt.c           |  2 ++
> >> net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c       | 13 +++++++++++++
> >> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> 
> > 
> > This patch seems a little more reasonable than the other one if only
> > because it shouldn't cause artificial delays when there is some
> > temporary hiccup that causes the server to shut down the connection.
> > 
> > That said, this seems to be squarely a server-side bug so I'm not sure
> > we ought to go to any great lengths to work around it.
> 
> So this is about a broken server that accepts connection requests and then immediately closes them?

That's correct.

> If so, then I agree with Jeff, it really isn?t something we need to fix on the client.

Not even for the sake of 'politeness' (for lack of a better word)?  This
was in a grid environment and there were apparently a few thousand clients
doing this, not just a single client.

-Scott
> 
> _________________________________
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
--
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