On 2/23/2017 3:26 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 03:11:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
(And if we really shouldn't be doing NFSv4 over some RDMA transports--is
it worth supporting them at all, if the only support we can get is
NFSv3-only?)
This seems like a strange comment - NFSv4 should be supported on all
RDMA transports, surely?
Largely RDMA lives in its own congestion management world. If a site
is running RDMA they have done something to mitigate interactions with
TCP style congestion control on the same wire.
The key words are "IETF-approved". Mitigation and Interaction are
operational decisions, not protocol design.
We could argue that the requirement is bogus, or that all RDMA transports
comply, or that the RPCRDMA layer provides it, but none of these arguments
would grant IETF approval. That said, I think there's a lot of
room for interpretation here.
Tom.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
