From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35E841D12F4; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:12:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724271171; cv=none; b=WLTJCNWXe9qYi/m2P4jpAKr911UgbkbflF7J3mmKuAB2boSYj+xW9eeNn3K5QLCeYlcYj3rEWF5rn8PQGmfJIfB1bPSNamrt9nv9ZAYzYG1pGlMA+HgP6mSzYHocfike/STkcDWJswRs1RzN1LSdMpE2GpCgQaZAVet6eP2OOAY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724271171; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MU9QsBlmD0igMpuERfU9uEjaDrQLsOgjNXMiTEFN8ro=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=svMZttRCtSCCrt0QMoey3MHB4L1rXxoBt/jJzMoWYPBO0PokkuxiB64wXb1uqcypm4WgKwiNeHt/vOcoMjLgeT8CMJfOWn8qL/0Qjpf1eJe7PDDJUe+5v0Y9ViSFhNhewi4dR18XZ4/sUsyKk0s/PoSusG6vuFzZnePi4fw56wA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=JMR34OQX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="JMR34OQX" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 917D8C32781; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:12:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1724271170; bh=MU9QsBlmD0igMpuERfU9uEjaDrQLsOgjNXMiTEFN8ro=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JMR34OQX8/oCYw1p+RkgPPs5CDxjWXAV4TsewTo4W0ybmQc5T7B5CknEtiMVSZzWZ JHN2a75GOUErWRValx+exkAtZL91Z6Ihlq459A4mU1vkhGBiRxDIhnnzLNEiDVhKzM ueleUQQVf9VVFM6ixgXwnjBCVG0Ju+DbBcrcMtQgxk3I+flIPOxZUWjhDFp4KkuK7p gKb0gddCXwQE1dQ28xzlgFT2G1lIxUGl+i4rQ/RIQsrjvA9BPDENZQ0AMhOZYTZykM u5egmaF+iIBZqhJJAbwggLYA8miq7NQGtipPVmM0jlcXeHVR5r8f+d+7Xip5kSphrc 0H8ObcW5YUI1w== Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 16:12:49 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer To: Jeff Layton Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Chuck Lever , Anna Schumaker , Trond Myklebust , NeilBrown , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 24/24] nfs: add FAQ section to Documentation/filesystems/nfs/localio.rst Message-ID: References: <20240819181750.70570-1-snitzer@kernel.org> <20240819181750.70570-25-snitzer@kernel.org> <115f7c93d81d080ce6aac64eaa4e8616a5fe0cdd.camel@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <115f7c93d81d080ce6aac64eaa4e8616a5fe0cdd.camel@kernel.org> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 03:03:07PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 2024-08-19 at 14:17 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > From: Trond Myklebust > > > > Add a FAQ section to give answers to questions that have been raised > > during review of the localio feature. > > > > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust > > Co-developed-by: Mike Snitzer > > Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer > > --- > >  Documentation/filesystems/nfs/localio.rst | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > >  1 file changed, 77 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/localio.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/localio.rst > > index d8bdab88f1db..acd8f3e5d87a 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/localio.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/localio.rst > > @@ -40,6 +40,83 @@ fio for 20 secs with 24 libaio threads, 128k directio reads, qd of 8, > >  - Without LOCALIO: > >    read: IOPS=12.0k, BW=1495MiB/s (1568MB/s)(29.2GiB/20015msec) > >   > > +FAQ > > +=== > > + > > +1. What are the use cases for LOCALIO? > > + > > +   a. Workloads where the NFS client and server are on the same host > > +      realize improved IO performance. In particular, it is common when > > +      running containerised workloads for jobs to find themselves > > +      running on the same host as the knfsd server being used for > > +      storage. > > + > > +2. What are the requirements for LOCALIO? > > + > > +   a. Bypass use of the network RPC protocol as much as possible. This > > +      includes bypassing XDR and RPC for open, read, write and commit > > +      operations. > > +   b. Allow client and server to autonomously discover if they are > > +      running local to each other without making any assumptions about > > +      the local network topology. > > +   c. Support the use of containers by being compatible with relevant > > +      namespaces (e.g. network, user, mount). > > +   d. Support all versions of NFS. NFSv3 is of particular importance > > +      because it has wide enterprise usage and pNFS flexfiles makes use > > +      of it for the data path. > > + > > +3. Why doesn´t LOCALIO just compare IP addresses or hostnames when > > +   deciding if the NFS client and server are co-located on the same > > +   host? > > + > > +   Since one of the main use cases is containerised workloads, we cannot > > +   assume that IP addresses will be shared between the client and > > +   server. This sets up a requirement for a handshake protocol that > > +   needs to go over the same connection as the NFS traffic in order to > > +   identify that the client and the server really are running on the > > +   same host. The handshake uses a secret that is sent over the wire, > > +   and can be verified by both parties by comparing with a value stored > > +   in shared kernel memory if they are truly co-located. > > + > > +4. Does LOCALIO improve pNFS flexfiles? > > + > > +   Yes, LOCALIO complements pNFS flexfiles by allowing it to take > > +   advantage of NFS client and server locality.  Policy that initiates > > +   client IO as closely to the server where the data is stored naturally > > +   benefits from the data path optimization LOCALIO provides. > > + > > +5. Why not develop a new pNFS layout to enable LOCALIO? > > + > > +   A new pNFS layout could be developed, but doing so would put the > > +   onus on the server to somehow discover that the client is co-located > > +   when deciding to hand out the layout. > > +   There is value in a simpler approach (as provided by LOCALIO) that > > +   allows the NFS client to negotiate and leverage locality without > > +   requiring more elaborate modeling and discovery of such locality in a > > +   more centralized manner. > > + > > +6. Why is having the client perform a server-side file OPEN, without > > +   using RPC, beneficial?  Is the benefit pNFS specific? > > + > > +   Avoiding the use of XDR and RPC for file opens is beneficial to > > +   performance regardless of whether pNFS is used. However adding a > > +   requirement to go over the wire to do an open and/or close ends up > > +   negating any benefit of avoiding the wire for doing the I/O itself > > +   when we´re dealing with small files. There is no benefit to replacing > > +   the READ or WRITE with a new open and/or close operation that still > > +   needs to go over the wire. > > + > > +7. Why is LOCALIO only supported with UNIX Authentication (AUTH_UNIX)? > > + > > +   Strong authentication is usually tied to the connection itself. It > > +   works by establishing a context that is cached by the server, and > > +   that acts as the key for discovering the authorisation token, which > > +   can then be passed to rpc.mountd to complete the authentication > > +   process. On the other hand, in the case of AUTH_UNIX, the credential > > +   that was passed over the wire is used directly as the key in the > > +   upcall to rpc.mountd. This simplifies the authentication process, and > > +   so makes AUTH_UNIX easier to support. > > + > >  RPC > >  === > >   > > I'd just squash this into patch #19. That'd use the fact Trond is the author. Does linux have a shortage on commit ids I'm unaware of? ;)