On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 10:45 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:15:05AM -0500, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2018, at 2:06, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > I take this as a "no serious problems by now". Good to hear. > > > Which kernel are you using? > > > > This was years ago on a 2.6.32 series. I don't expect you'll have > > serious problems now, either. As far as I know, my last employer is > > still using that architecture, but I couldn't tell you what software > > versions they're on now.. > > > > We moved to the knfsd-in-a-container from an architecture that was > > essentially a bunch of vanilla knfsds that could mount and any of > > the block devices, and block devices were tied to IP addresses, and > > this was all orchestrated by pacemaker. The problem with that one > > was that when a block device or filesystem was migrated, the server > > receiving that filesystem had to be put into grace, which disrupted > > any existing NFS serving that was going on. > > > > Test things, let us know how it works! > > I think you were using KVM, right, Ben? > > Harald is talking about LXC, and there are still a few problems there. > > Jeff, do you object to going back to our plan B for reboot recovery (the > daemon)? The usermode helper containerization seems stalled and I have > to admit I'm probably not going to take it on myself. That might be the > only knfsd-in-a-container obstacle left. Sorry for the late response. I've no objection to resurrecting that approach if it helps this use-case. The daemon and umh callout should be able to share a lot of the same code and database if it's done properly. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
