On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:05:10PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:03 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 04:29:14PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:19:25AM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > >>> >> Yes I agree. Let’s please decide if this will go in (with whatever code improvements are required) or let’s drop it. > >>> > > >>> > Well, my vote is very clearly to drop it. > >>> > >>> Bruce, when will you make a decision about this? Is there something > >>> more that needs to happen before it can be decided if the "async" > >>> patches are moving forward (and then "inter" patches). > >> > >> I'm OK with the patches. > >> > >> It could help to have some more information about actual customer use > >> cases: who specifically is asking for this, and what about their > >> situation makes them believe they'll benefit? > > > > I'm really not involved with customer or know of how exactly they will > > benefit. I have some knowledge of some company that is interested in > > using copy offload functionality in game development. I have no > > details. It has been talked about a case scenario of copying VM > > images. I don't know if VMware uses copy offload or not. > > > >> But to me it seems obvious that server-to-server copy will be faster in > >> some cases as long there's not some screwup preventing it from using the > >> server-to-server bandwidth (and your numbers don't show any). So I'm > >> not terribly worried about this. > >> > >> If we wanted to simplify I think we could ditch the asynchronous > >> protocol and still make server-to-server copy work as a series of > >> synchronous calls. (Or maybe that would make getting good performance > >> the complicated part.) > > > > I'm not in favor of dropping asynchronous piece as I think it's an > > important performance improvement. It's likely it won't be must of an > > improvement due to an overhead of establishing clientid/session for > > every "chuck" of the copy that will be sent synchronously. > > > >> The only security issue I'm worried about is the fact that you can make > >> it try to copy from any arbitrary IP address. I'd be satisfied if we > >> document the issue and make server-to-server-copy support require a > >> runtime switch that defaults to off. (And with that in place I don't > >> see a need to also provide a build option.) > > > > Ok, runtime option, I'll work on it. > > Hi Bruce, > > I would like to come back to this code and hopefully make progress. > > I heard about the LSF discussion that there was interest in the copy > offload and async code. If so where do we stand now and what are the > next steps now? I actually don't remember that discussion, apologies. Next steps might be for you to add the runtime option and resend? And then I need to give it another read. --b. -- 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
