Re: [PATCH Version 3 0/2] Add multihostname support for NFSv4.1,2

[bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:24:30AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 29, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 04/29/2016 10:27 AM, Adamson, Andy wrote:
> >> Hi Steve
> >> 
> >> Yes, if we decide to keep the multiple hostname option, then a man page update is required. I don't think we have a consensus on using the multiple hostname mount option as a CLI to express session trunking addresses. Chuck Lever made some good points around not using multiple hostnames:
> >> 
> >> ---- From Chuck: ----
> >> - client admins can specify arbitrary hostnames on the command line; hostnames
> >> for instance that correspond to some other server.
> >> 
> >> - network conditions can change at anytime, making
> >> the original set of trunks lop-sided, or some trunks
> >> may become unreachable. What if the server reboots
> >> with new i/f's or with one or more removed? The
> >> client would likely have to remount in these cases
> >> to adapt to network configuration changes.
> >> 
> >> - multiple hostnames could be nailed into
> >> /etc/fstab on potentially hundreds of clients. When
> >> server or network configuration changes, there would
> >> have to be a manual change on all these clients.
> >> ----------
> >> 
> >> What do you think? Should we keep the multiple hostname CLI as one method of expressing session trunking addresses?
> > I would think so...
> 
> I don't believe a mount CLI is an obvious good choice.
> 
> The client and server should provide some indication
> to each other that session trunking is supported. The
> server should provide the proper configuration
> parameters, which can change even while a client has
> mounted the server.
> 
> That's why I favor having the client perform a
> GETATTR(fs_locations) on the server's pseudofs, via
> which the server provides the correct addresses to
> use. The client can poll for changes in the address
> list on a regular basis.
> 
> Please, let's automate this instead of having to
> nail one more wonky feature into the mount CLI?

Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

My worries from the previous thread were that the fs_locations and
fs_locations_info don't *really* give enough information to guarantee
that trunking will be an improvement.

But I'd guess those cases aren't common (maybe fs_locations use isn't
even that common).  Still, might want a way to opt out.

Maybe it would be worth documenting what the automatic probing does so
that servers know how to influence it if desired.

--b.