Re: Grace period

["bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:17:06PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 12:11 -0400, bfields@fieldses.org wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 08:08:57PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> > > 09.04.2012 19:27, Jeff Layton пишет:
> > > >
> > > >If you allow one container to hand out conflicting locks while another
> > > >container is allowing reclaims, then you can end up with some very
> > > >difficult to debug silent data corruption. That's the worst possible
> > > >outcome, IMO. We really need to actively keep people from shooting
> > > >themselves in the foot here.
> > > >
> > > >One possibility might be to only allow filesystems to be exported from
> > > >a single container at a time (and allow that to be overridable somehow
> > > >once we have a working active/active serving solution). With that, you
> > > >may be able limp along with a per-container grace period handling
> > > >scheme like you're proposing.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Ok then. Keeping people from shooting themselves here sounds reasonable.
> > > And I like the idea of exporting a filesystem only from once per
> > > network namespace.
> > 
> > Unfortunately that's not going to get us very far, especially not in the
> > v4 case where we've got the common read-only pseudoroot that everyone
> > has to share.
> 
> I don't see how that can work in cases where each container has its own
> private mount namespace. You're going to have to tie that pseudoroot to
> the mount namespace somehow.

Sure, but in typical cases it'll still be shared; requiring that they
not be sounds like a severe limitation.

--b.