From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022F87F67 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:59:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76CE304043 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com (mail-pd0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id zUY3NUYbntTkHlQQ (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id fp1so30672737pdb.5 for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:59:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 09:59:44 -0800 From: Tom Haynes Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] nfsd: implement pNFS layout recalls Message-ID: <20150106175943.GA14225@kitty.kitty> References: <1420561721-9150-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1420561721-9150-11-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150106172508.GE12067@fieldses.org> <20150106174214.GB16200@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150106174214.GB16200@lst.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:42:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This bothers me a little: cl_addr is just the address that the > > exchange_id came from. In theory there's no one-to-one relationship > > between NFSv4 clients and IP addresses. Is it likely the iscsi traffic > > could use a different interface than the MDS traffic? > > > > If this is the best we can do, then maybe this should at least be > > documented. > > The pNFS block fencing protocol bothers me a lot, it seems like very > little thought went into that part of the standard. > > I proposed a new SCSI layout type that fixes those issues on the > NFSv4 WG list, but there's been zero interest in it: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg13469.html > I don't know if I would say zero interest or normal apathy on the NFSv4 WG list to replying outside of the IETF meeting venue. I'd certainly like to see it go forward. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs