From: Olaf Kirch <okir@lst.de>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] Re: [NFS] [PATCH 3/4 Revised] NLM - kernel lockd-statd changes
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:10:01 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200704101109.44333.okir@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46156FA0.4030506@redhat.com>
On Thursday 05 April 2007 23:52, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> The changes record the ip interface that accepts the lock requests and
> passes the correct "my_name" (in standard IPV4 dot notation) to user
> mode statd (instead of system_utsname.nodename). This enables rpc.statd
> to add the correct taken-over IPv4 address into the 3rd parameter of
> ha_callout program. Current nfs-utils always resets "my_name" into
> loopback address (127.0.0.1), regardless the statement made in rpc.statd
> man page. Check out "man rpc.statd" and "man sm-notify" for details.
I don't think this is the right approach. For one, there's not enough
room in the SM_MON request to accomodate an additional IPv6
address, so you would have to come up with something entirely
different for IPv6 anyway. But more importantly, I think we should
move away from associating all sorts of network level addresses
with lockd state - addresses are just smoke and mirrors. Despite
all of NLM/NSMs shortcomings, there's a vehicle to convey identity,
and that's mon_name. IMHO the focus should be on making it work
properly if it doesn't do what you do.
But - why do you need to record the address on which the request was
received. at all? Don't you know beforehand on which IP addresses you
will be servicing NFS requests, and which will need to be migrated?
Side note: should we think about replacing SM_MON with some new
design altogether (think netlink)?
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
okir at lst.de | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-10 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-05 21:52 [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 3/4 Revised] NLM - kernel lockd-statd changes Wendy Cheng
2007-04-10 9:10 ` Olaf Kirch [this message]
2007-04-10 14:41 ` [Cluster-devel] Re: [NFS] " Lon Hohberger
2007-04-10 15:00 ` Wendy Cheng
2007-04-10 18:16 ` Wendy Cheng
[not found] ` <message from Olaf Kirch on Tuesday April 10>
2007-04-11 4:50 ` Neil Brown
2007-04-13 19:16 ` Lon Hohberger
2007-04-13 19:31 ` Wendy Cheng
2007-04-17 11:52 ` Olaf Kirch
2007-04-17 13:24 ` Wendy Cheng
2007-04-17 14:51 ` Olaf Kirch
2007-04-17 15:09 ` Wendy Cheng
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=200704101109.44333.okir@lst.de \
--to=okir@lst.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).