Re: [PATCH RFC v5 0/2] nfsd: Initial implementation of NFSv4 Courteous Server

[dai.ngo@oracle.com]

On 11/29/21 11:13 AM, Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 07:03:12PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>> Hello Dai!
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 29, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/29/21 9:30 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:13:16AM -0800, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/21/21 7:04 PM, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/21 4:34 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:46:02PM -0800, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/21 9:59 AM, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/21 6:14 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 03:06:32PM -0800, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just a reminder that this patch is still waiting for your review.
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I was procrastinating and hoping yo'ud figure out the pynfs
>>>>>>>>>> failure for me....
>>>>>>>>> Last time I ran 4.0 OPEN18 test by itself and it passed. I will run
>>>>>>>>> all OPEN tests together with 5.15-rc7 to see if the problem you've
>>>>>>>>> seen still there.
>>>>>>>> I ran all tests in nfsv4.1 and nfsv4.0 with courteous and non-courteous
>>>>>>>> 5.15-rc7 server.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nfs4.1 results are the same for both courteous and
>>>>>>>> non-courteous server:
>>>>>>>>> Of those: 0 Skipped, 0 Failed, 0 Warned, 169 Passed
>>>>>>>> Results of nfs4.0 with non-courteous server:
>>>>>>>>> Of those: 8 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 577 Passed
>>>>>>>> test failed: LOCK24
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Results of nfs4.0 with courteous server:
>>>>>>>>> Of those: 8 Skipped, 3 Failed, 0 Warned, 575 Passed
>>>>>>>> tests failed: LOCK24, OPEN18, OPEN30
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OPEN18 and OPEN30 test pass if each is run by itself.
>>>>>>> Could well be a bug in the tests, I don't know.
>>>>>> The reason OPEN18 failed was because the test timed out waiting for
>>>>>> the reply of an OPEN call. The RPC connection used for the test was
>>>>>> configured with 15 secs timeout. Note that OPEN18 only fails when
>>>>>> the tests were run with 'all' option, this test passes if it's run
>>>>>> by itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With courteous server, by the time OPEN18 runs, there are about 1026
>>>>>> courtesy 4.0 clients on the server and all of these clients have opened
>>>>>> the same file X with WRITE access. These clients were created by the
>>>>>> previous tests. After each test completed, since 4.0 does not have
>>>>>> session, the client states are not cleaned up immediately on the
>>>>>> server and are allowed to become courtesy clients.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When OPEN18 runs (about 20 minutes after the 1st test started), it
>>>>>> sends OPEN of file X with OPEN4_SHARE_DENY_WRITE which causes the
>>>>>> server to check for conflicts with courtesy clients. The loop that
>>>>>> checks 1026 courtesy clients for share/access conflict took less
>>>>>> than 1 sec. But it took about 55 secs, on my VM, for the server
>>>>>> to expire all 1026 courtesy clients.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I modified pynfs to configure the 4.0 RPC connection with 60 seconds
>>>>>> timeout and OPEN18 now consistently passed. The 4.0 test results are
>>>>>> now the same for courteous and non-courteous server:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 8 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 577 Passed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that 4.1 tests do not suffer this timeout problem because the
>>>>>> 4.1 clients and sessions are destroyed after each test completes.
>>>>> Do you want me to send the patch to increase the timeout for pynfs?
>>>>> or is there any other things you think we should do?
>>>> I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> 55 seconds to clean up 1026 clients is about 50ms per client, which is
>>>> pretty slow.  I wonder why.  I guess it's probably updating the stable
>>>> storage information.  Is /var/lib/nfs/ on your server backed by a hard
>>>> drive or an SSD or something else?
>>> My server is a virtualbox VM that has 1 CPU, 4GB RAM and 64GB of hard
>>> disk. I think a production system that supports this many clients should
>>> have faster CPUs, faster storage.
>>>
>>>> I wonder if that's an argument for limiting the number of courtesy
>>>> clients.
>>> I think we might want to treat 4.0 clients a bit different from 4.1
>>> clients. With 4.0, every client will become a courtesy client after
>>> the client is done with the export and unmounts it.
>> It should be safe for a server to purge a client's lease immediately
>> if there is no open or lock state associated with it.
>>
>> When an NFSv4.0 client unmounts, all files should be closed at that
>> point, so the server can wait for the lease to expire and purge it
>> normally. Or am I missing something?
> Makes sense to me!
>
>>> Since there is
>>> no destroy session/client with 4.0, the courteous server allows the
>>> client to be around and becomes a courtesy client. So after awhile,
>>> even with normal usage, there will be lots 4.0 courtesy clients
>>> hanging around and these clients won't be destroyed until 24hrs
>>> later, or until they cause conflicts with other clients.
>>>
>>> We can reduce the courtesy_client_expiry time for 4.0 clients from
>>> 24hrs to 15/20 mins, enough for most network partition to heal?,
>>> or limit the number of 4.0 courtesy clients. Or don't support 4.0
>>> clients at all which is my preference since I think in general users
>>> should skip 4.0 and use 4.1 instead.
> I'm also totally fine with leaving out 4.0, at least to start.

Ok Bruce, I will submit v6 patch for this.

Thanks,
-Dai

>
> --b.