On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 23:59 +0200, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "trondmy" <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: "Tigran Mkrtchyan" <tigran.mkrtchyan@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: "linux-nfs" <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Olga Kornievskaia" < > > aglo@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 11:13:37 PM > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] Fix up soft mounts for NFSv4.x > > On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 22:51 +0200, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: > > > Hi Trond, > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Trond Myklebust" <trondmy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > To: "Olga Kornievskaia" <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: "linux-nfs" <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 8:28:38 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] Fix up soft mounts for NFSv4.x > > > > On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 12:54 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:02 PM Trond Myklebust < > > > > > trondmy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > This patchset aims to make soft mounts a viable option for > > > > > > NFSv4 > > > > > > clients > > > > > > by minimising the risk of false positive timeouts, while > > > > > > allowing > > > > > > for > > > > > > faster failover of reads and writes once a timeout is > > > > > > actually > > > > > > observed. > > > > > > > > > > > > The patches rely on the NFS server correctly implementing > > > > > > the > > > > > > contract > > > > > > specified in RFC7530 section 3.1.1 with respect to not > > > > > > dropping > > > > > > requests > > > > > > while the transport connection is up. When this is the > > > > > > case, > > > > > > the > > > > > > client > > > > > > can safely assume that if the request has not received a > > > > > > reply > > > > > > after > > > > > > transmitting a RPC request, it is not because the request > > > > > > was > > > > > > dropped, > > > > > > but rather is due to congestion, or slow processing on the > > > > > > server. > > > > > > IOW: as long as the connection remains up, there is no need > > > > > > for > > > > > > requests > > > > > > to time out. > > > > > > > > > > > > The patches break down roughly as follows: > > > > > > - A set of patches to clean up the RPC engine timeouts, and > > > > > > ensure > > > > > > they > > > > > > are accurate. > > > > > > - A set of patches to change the 'soft' mount semantics for > > > > > > NFSv4.x. > > > > > > - A set of patches to add a new 'softerr' mount option that > > > > > > works > > > > > > like > > > > > > soft, but explicitly signals timeouts using the ETIMEDOUT > > > > > > error > > > > > > code > > > > > > rather than using EIO. This allows applications to tune > > > > > > their > > > > > > behaviour (e.g. by failing over to a different server) if > > > > > > a > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > occurs. > > > > > > > > > > I'm just curious why would an application be aware of a > > > > > different > > > > > server to connect to and an NFS layer would not be? I'm also > > > > > curious > > > > > wouldn't it break application that typically expect to get an > > > > > EIO > > > > > errors? Do all system calls allow to return ETIMEDOUT error? > > > > > > > > This is why it is a separate mount option. ...and actually most > > > > applications blow up when they get EIO as well. However you can > > > > imagine > > > > an application that might decide to retry if it hits an > > > > ETIMEDOUT, > > > > while failing if it hits an EIO. > > > > > > What is the reason of introducing new error code for IO > > > operations, > > > which > > > is not in the list of POSIX specified values for read(2) and > > > write(2). Is > > > there expected application behavior change compared to EAGAIN? > > > > The point is to allow aware applications to better handle a > > situation > > which is not covered by POSIX because POSIX has no concept of > > storage > > that is temporarily unavailable. > > > > ...and it is being proposed as an opt-in feature, precisely so that > > existing applications don't need to change. > > Yes and no. As a mount option, you expose this behavior to all > applications > on the client. Thus, either stupid app die and smart survive, or all > block, but smart suffer. I don't understand your point. This is doing the exact same thing as 'soft', but behaves differently with respect to timeouts, by returning ETIMEDOUT instead of EIO. IOW: if you want the same behaviour, but returning a POSIX error of EIO, then that behaviour is already there with "soft". > As you probably know, we have to handle similar issue. Currently it's > a > server side configuration, which depending on uid/gid of the user > returns > either NFSERR_IO or NFSERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER. This is still wrong, as > not all > applications from the same users required the same handling. You have options here too. Containers or VMs are one option for completely isolating applications that need special behaviours, and giving them their own special mounts. You can also isolate by path: mounting with one set of options in one part of your namespace and with another set of options in another part of the namespace, and then pointing the applications at the "correct" path for the behaviour they need. > Regards, > Tigran. > > > > I would like to use the opportunity to bring the topic of > > > O_NONBLOCK > > > open(2) > > > flag for offline files. > > > > -- > > Trond Myklebust > > CTO, Hammerspace Inc > > 4300 El Camino Real, Suite 105 > > Los Altos, CA 94022 > > www.hammer.space -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
