On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:42 PM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 11:06:37AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >> The discussion of close-to-open describes the GETATTR and data flush >> behavior implemented on the Linux client, but does not describe what >> happens between open() and close(). The lack of strict cache >> coherency surprises users who expect single-system behavior >> similar to local file systems. >> >> An explicit description of this behavior is inserted. Additional >> clarifications are made of the surrounding text. >> >> Text contributed by Trond, Bruce, Chuck, and Chris Perl. >> >> Link: http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=142472673425307&w=2 >> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Hi- >> >> TBH I'm more concerned about nfs(5) than I am about the antique NFS >> FAQ. Besides, my sf.net login expired long ago, after I retired from >> FAQ maintenance. > > If someone wanted to just copy the whole thing over to the linux-nfs.org > wiki, I'd support that. > >> Thus I'm proposing this change to nfs(5). Then I'd like to suggest >> eventually replacing the bulk of FAQ A8 with a pointer to the DATA >> AND METADATA COHERENCE section of nfs(5). > > Moving it to the man pages sounds fine to me too, though. >> Comments? > > We're leading with the mechanism (flushing and attribute checking), > which I think encourages people to reason starting from the > implementation. We know that's difficult. > > I'd rather lead with a conservative black-box explanation of what > applications can and cannot depend on. So, this feels like a slow-motion orbit. I don’t see a way to reconcile your preferences with Trond’s. I’ll stand out of the way and let you guys work through it. > --b. > >> >> utils/mount/nfs.man | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/utils/mount/nfs.man b/utils/mount/nfs.man >> index fe4f9b1..4df8a16 100644 >> --- a/utils/mount/nfs.man >> +++ b/utils/mount/nfs.man >> @@ -1148,9 +1148,11 @@ is expensive to achieve, especially on wide area networks. >> As such, NFS settles for weaker cache coherence that >> satisfies the requirements of most file sharing types. >> .SS "Close-to-open cache consistency" >> -Typically file sharing is completely sequential. >> -First client A opens a file, writes something to it, then closes it. >> -Then client B opens the same file, and reads the changes. >> +Typically applications share files in a sequential manner. >> +First application A opens a file, writes something to it, then closes it. >> +Then application B opens the same file, and reads the changes. >> +This typical sharing behavior is leveraged to keep NFS operations >> +from multiple clients fast. >> .P >> When an application opens a file stored on an NFS version 3 server, >> the NFS client checks that the file exists on the server >> @@ -1165,14 +1167,27 @@ This also gives the NFS client an opportunity to report >> write errors to the application via the return code from >> .BR close (2). >> .P >> -The behavior of checking at open time and flushing at close time >> -is referred to as >> +To maintain good performance, the NFS client only occasionally checks >> +whether its cache remains valid between open() and close(). >> +.P >> +The behavior of checking a file at open time and flushing at close time, >> +with relaxed consistency checking in between, is referred to as >> .IR "close-to-open cache consistency" , >> or >> .IR CTO . >> -It can be disabled for an entire mount point using the >> +.P >> +Note that applications cannot rely on implicit cache revalidation >> +while a file is held open. >> +If an open file changes on the NFS server, read() on clients may return >> +stale data or holes, unless the application explicitly serializes >> +file changes with reads using file locking or some other technique. >> +.P >> +In rare cases, sending a GETATTR on every open() >> +may still be too much overhead. >> +Close-to-open can be relaxed further >> +for an entire NFS version 3 mount point using the >> .B nocto >> -mount option. >> +mount option, at the cost of even weaker client cache coherence. >> .SS "Weak cache consistency" >> There are still opportunities for a client's data cache >> to contain stale data. >> >> -- >> 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
