From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi <btharindu@gmail.com>,
Andy Adamson <andros@netapp.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: starting 90-second grace period
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:09:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1260562171.15701.40.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091211195047.GA15758@fieldses.org>
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 14:50 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:20:43PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +0530, Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi
> > wrote:
> > > then why is it 90 by default ... is it RFC/Protocol requirement ?
> >
> > The purpose of the grace period is to give the clients enough time to
> > notice that the server has rebooted, and to reclaim their existing locks
> > without danger of having somebody else steal the lock from them.
> >
> > It is not a protocol requirement, but it is definitely a strongly
> > recommended feaature if you don't want to see corruption in your
> > mailbox/database/logfile/... that relies on those locks.
>
> There are a few things we could do to lessen the pain of the grace
> period, though--such as ending it when we know it's done. (In the v4
> case, that's just when we know there are no clients to recover state; in
> the v4.1 case, that's when all the RECLAIM_COMPLETE's are done.)
You can't clear the grace period unless you know that all 3 protocols
are done. I.e. the list of NSM monitored clients was empty, the list of
NFSv4 clients was empty, and the NFSv4.1 reclaim_completes are all done
(or the list was empty).
In no case should it be done by adjusting the duration of the lease
period.
Trond
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-11 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-11 11:00 starting 90-second grace period Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi
2009-12-11 17:08 ` Andy Adamson
2009-12-11 17:25 ` Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi
2009-12-11 18:01 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-12-11 18:09 ` Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi
2009-12-11 18:20 ` Trond Myklebust
2009-12-11 19:50 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-12-11 20:09 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2009-12-11 20:12 ` J. Bruce Fields
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=1260562171.15701.40.camel@localhost \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=andros@netapp.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=btharindu@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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