Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/7] Volatile Filehandle Client-side Support

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:52:28AM -0600, Malahal Naineni wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields [bfields@fieldses.org] wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:09:14AM -0600, Malahal Naineni wrote:
> > > Trond Myklebust [Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com] wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 08:07 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > If a server has objects that are never renamed, it can easily use volatile
> > > > > file handles.
> > > > > If a server has objects which can be renamed and wants to use volatile file
> > > > > handles, then if such an object is open and is about to be renamed, it must
> > > > > first log to stable storage some mapping to allow it to access the file from
> > > > > the old volatile file handle.  And of course it cannot allow renames during
> > > > > the grace period, but I think we already have that.
> > > > > Also, if the VFH is such that it will be  lost on a reboot, the server must
> > > > > log it to stable storage before allowing an open.
> > > > 
> > > > BTW: If the namespace is stable, then the server can easily implement
> > > > permanent filehandles. Use a hash of the pathname as the filehandle, and
> > > > set up a hidden directory ('/.filehandles') containing symlinks that map
> > > > said hash back to the correct pathname. No need for volatile
> > > > filehandles.
> > > 
> > > Neil and Trond, one of our use cases is for a read only file system. The
> > > name space is stable and Volatile File Handle support should not have
> > > any issues under those conditions, correct?
> > 
> > Dumb question: remind me which filesystem your exporting that can't
> > already generate stable filehandles?
> 
> Only answers can be dumb! Bruce, we have ext3/ext4 file systems on two
> separate servers. The file systems are mirrored using rsync as and when
> needed. We would like to use the servers as replicas.

And why aren't you rsync'ing the underlying filesystem image instead?
Is that too slow?

> Since the file systems are mirrored using "rsync", the NFS file handles
> each server exports would be different. We would like to use volatile
> file handles feature of NFSv4 for this.

In theory the hidden directory for reverse lookups would work, but it
seems like it would be complicated to get right:
	- How do you generate the directory and keep it up to date?
	- What happens if somebody breaks the rules and updates the
	  filesystem while it's being exported?

Somehow it feels like there should be a simpler solution.

Maybe there would be other applications for that kind of
filehandle->file mapping, though, I don't know.

--b.