On 5/30/2019 10:31 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Thu, May 30 2019, Tom Talpey wrote:
On 5/30/2019 6:38 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Thu, May 30 2019, Tom Talpey wrote:
On 5/30/2019 1:20 PM, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 1:05 PM Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/29/2019 8:41 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
I've also re-arrange the patches a bit, merged two, and remove the
restriction to TCP and NFSV4.x,x>=1. Discussions seemed to suggest
these restrictions were not needed, I can see no need.
I believe the need is for the correctness of retries. Because NFSv2,
NFSv3 and NFSv4.0 have no exactly-once semantics of their own, server
duplicate request caches are important (although often imperfect).
These caches use client XID's, source ports and addresses, sometimes
in addition to other methods, to detect retry. Existing clients are
careful to reconnect with the same source port, to ensure this. And
existing servers won't change.
Retries are already bound to the same connection so there shouldn't be
an issue of a retransmission coming from a different source port.
So, there's no path redundancy? If any connection is lost and can't
be reestablished, the requests on that connection will time out?
Path redundancy happens lower down in the stack. Presumably a bonding
driver will divert flows to a working path when one path fails.
NFS doesn't see paths at all. It just sees TCP connections - each with
the same source and destination address. How these are associated, from
time to time, with different hardware is completely transparent to NFS.
But, you don't propose to constrain this to bonded connections. So
NFS will create connections on whatever collection of NICs which are
locally, and if these aren't bonded, well, the issues become visible.
If a client had multiple network interfaces with different addresses,
and several of them had routes to the selected server IP, then this
might result in the multiple connections to the server having different
local addresses (as well as different local ports) - I don't know the
network layer well enough to be sure if this is possible, but it seems
credible.
If one of these interfaces then went down, and there was no automatic
routing reconfiguration in place to restore connectivity through a
different interface, then the TCP connection would timeout and break.
The xprt would then try to reconnect using the same source port and
destination address - it doesn't provide an explicit source address, but
lets the network layer provide one.
This would presumably result in a connection with a different source
address. So requests would continue to flow on the xprt, but they might
miss the DRC as the source address would be different.
If you have a configuration like this (multi-homed client with
multiple interfaces that can reach the server with equal weight), then
you already have a possible problem of missing the DRC if one interface
goes down a new connection is established from another one. nconnect
doesn't change that.
So I still don't see any problem.
If I've misunderstood you, please provide a detailed description of the
sort of configuration where you think a problem might arise.
You nailed it. But, I disagree that there won't be a problem. NFSv4.1
and up will be fine, but NFS versions which rely on a heuristic, space
limited DRC, will not.
Tom.
BTW, RDMA NICs are never bonded.
I've come across the concept of "Multi-Rail", but I cannot say that I
fully understand it yet. I suspect you would need more than nconnect to
make proper use of multi-rail RDMA
Thanks,
NeilBrown
