On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:42:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This bothers me a little: cl_addr is just the address that the > > exchange_id came from. In theory there's no one-to-one relationship > > between NFSv4 clients and IP addresses. Is it likely the iscsi traffic > > could use a different interface than the MDS traffic? > > > > If this is the best we can do, then maybe this should at least be > > documented. > > The pNFS block fencing protocol bothers me a lot, it seems like very > little thought went into that part of the standard. > > I proposed a new SCSI layout type that fixes those issues on the > NFSv4 WG list, but there's been zero interest in it: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg13469.html > I don't know if I would say zero interest or normal apathy on the NFSv4 WG list to replying outside of the IETF meeting venue. I'd certainly like to see it go forward. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
