From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nfsd: implement pNFS layout recalls Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 18:42:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20150106174214.GB16200@lst.de> References: <1420561721-9150-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1420561721-9150-11-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150106172508.GE12067@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:57462 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751453AbbAFRmT (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 12:42:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150106172508.GE12067@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717577F8E for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:42:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25F5AC005 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:42:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 3RB8AX0GaOTuuqVg (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:42:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 18:42:14 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nfsd: implement pNFS layout recalls Message-ID: <20150106174214.GB16200@lst.de> References: <1420561721-9150-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1420561721-9150-11-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150106172508.GE12067@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150106172508.GE12067@fieldses.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com > 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs