From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wendy Cheng Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:00:06 -0400 Subject: [Cluster-devel] Re: [NFS] [PATCH 3/4 Revised] NLM - kernel lockd-statd changes In-Reply-To: <200704101109.44333.okir@lst.de> References: <46156FA0.4030506@redhat.com> <200704101109.44333.okir@lst.de> Message-ID: <461BA676.1030305@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Olaf Kirch wrote: > 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. The original plan was to pass fsid instead of floating ip but it required some major restructures on host lookup and file lookup (in nlmsvc_retrieve_args). I have been hoping by the time IPV6 is really required, NFS V4 would be mature enough to get deployed (so this would be a non-issue anyway). If people doesn't mind to restructure the sequence of host and file lookup, passing fsid can be one of the strong candidates to get this right. > 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)? > > Totally agree ! More on this later when I'm back to office. -- Wendy