From: Tom Talpey <tom-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields"
<bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
trond.myklebust-7I+n7zu2hftEKMMhf/gKZA@public.gmane.org,
schumaker.anna-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:33:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18ef37c3-95db-9a2c-dbcb-f579672065d6@talpey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170223202609.GC26301-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
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-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
trond.myklebust@primarydata.com, schumaker.anna@gmail.com,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:33:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18ef37c3-95db-9a2c-dbcb-f579672065d6@talpey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170223202609.GC26301@obsidianresearch.com>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-23 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-23 17:03 [PATCH 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce requirement for congestion control protocols in NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 19:42 ` Tom Talpey
[not found] ` <2152dfdf-f847-2511-1600-6499b6ea9708-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:00 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:00 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <1487880034.3448.8.camel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:06 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-23 20:06 ` Tom Talpey
[not found] ` <65056db6-f30a-c44d-b01c-b549887c4895-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:11 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-23 20:11 ` J. Bruce Fields
[not found] ` <20170223201109.GC11882-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
[not found] ` <20170223202609.GC26301-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:33 ` Tom Talpey [this message]
2017-02-23 20:33 ` Tom Talpey
[not found] ` <18ef37c3-95db-9a2c-dbcb-f579672065d6-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-23 20:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
[not found] ` <20170223205502.GA29673-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-24 15:08 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-24 15:08 ` Tom Talpey
[not found] ` <4eb1da3d-2690-7647-2d85-cc574bc1d564-CLs1Zie5N5HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-24 17:17 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 17:17 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <1487956644.3314.4.camel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2017-02-24 18:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-24 18:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:32 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:32 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:17 ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 20:17 ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 20:15 ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce congestion control protocol requirement for NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:17 ` [PATCH 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce requirement for congestion control protocols in NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] sunrpc: flag transports as having both reliable and ordered delivery, and congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce transport requirements for NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:38 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements Chuck Lever
2017-02-24 18:53 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 21:23 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 18:53 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-24 21:22 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 21:25 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 21:34 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 21:44 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-27 11:59 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-27 12:08 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-27 12:55 ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-27 14:20 ` J. Bruce Fields
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=18ef37c3-95db-9a2c-dbcb-f579672065d6@talpey.com \
--to=tom-cls1zie5n5hqt0dzr+alfa@public.gmane.org \
--cc=bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=chuck.lever-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org \
--cc=jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=schumaker.anna-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust-7I+n7zu2hftEKMMhf/gKZA@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.