On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 02:15:57PM -0800, Frank Filz wrote: > How much conversation about re-export has been had at the wider NFS > community level? I have an interest because Ganesha supports re-export via > the PROXY_V3 and PROXY_V4 FSALs. We currently don't have a data cache though > there has been discussion of such, we do have attribute and dirent caches. > > Looking over the wiki page, I have considered being able to specify a > re-export of a Ganesha export without encapsulating handles. Ganesha > encapsulates the export_fs handle in a way that could be coordinated between > the original server and the re-export so they would both effectively have > the same encapsulation layer. In the case the re-export server only servers a single export, I guess you could do away with the encapsulation. (The only risk I see is that a client of the re-export server could also access any export of the original server if it could guess filehandles, which might surprise admins.) Maybe that'd be useful. Another advantage of not encapsulating filehandles is that clients could more easily migrate between servers. Cooperating servers could have an agreement on filehandles. And I guess we could standardize that somehow. Are we ready for that? I'm not sure what other re-exporting problems there are that I haven't thought of. --b. > I'd love to see some re-export best practices shared among server > implementations, and also what we can do to improve things when two server > implementations are interoperating via re-export.
