On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 08:25 -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 2017, at 10:45 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.o
> > > rg>
>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:40:45AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > File handles suddenly change and lock state vanishes after a
> > > > live
> > > > migration event, both of which would be catastrophic for
> > > > hypervisor
> > > > mount points.
> > >
> > > They're talking about a Ganesha/Ceph backend. It should be able
> > > to
> > > preserve filehandles.
> >
> > That's only one possible implementation. I'm thinking in terms of
> > what
>
> needs
> > to be documented for interoperability purposes.
>
> It seems like live migration pretty much requires a back end that
> will
> preserve file handles.
>
> > > Lock migration will require server-side implementation work but
> > > not
> > > protocol changes that I'm aware of.
> > >
> > > It could be a lot of implementation work, though.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> I think the lock migration can be handled the way we handle state
> migration
> in an HA environment - where we treat it as a server reboot to the
> client
> (so SM_NOTIFY to v3 clients, the various errors v4 uses to signal
> server
> reboot, in either case, the client will initiate lock reclaim).
>
Mind showing us an architecture for that? As far as I can see, the
layering is as follows:
VM client
--------------
host knfsd
--------------
host client
--------------
Storage server
So how would you notify the VM client that its locks have been
migrated?
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
