IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Tue, 19 July 2016 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE34712D19B; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.607
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=emc.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6Xi3nqYb4LR; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D66FE12D5C3; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.36]) by mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u6JAMFkR028279 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:22:17 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com u6JAMFkR028279
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1468923737; bh=yFJLuZgnR/A56MQS8kZIM5od/3U=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=hBs1pVXH72vZQwQfAHA1yLw72QnzRdQPHJi0BE3sub4lBjSvolLvHCbyJuCK0D8/S aA6+ILlhmkCF2KIaN5P8PCVVuUInDqI16fENJOiS9tWff/UPmMEVwz69LsgBsMM0EU RhiP2RqFWKFkJIaLP5JvTWbcT6PsrtdDtjPlokPo=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com u6JAMFkR028279
Received: from mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.19]) by maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:21:15 -0400
Received: from MXHUB306.corp.emc.com (MXHUB306.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.32]) by mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u6JAM1q6014322 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:22:01 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB306.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:22:01 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Topic: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHR4K3K8wfnVvkCTU6Qg8TL3lRfs6AfbEIggABG/AD//9osRw==
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:22:00 +0000
Message-ID: <r1uht59bv8ekoy91hatcoqpc.1468923715564@email.android.com>
References: <20160628150730.24155.95557.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F5D4F49@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <20160718043512.GA19492@lst.de> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F5F15F6@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>, <20160719083724.GA21312@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20160719083724.GA21312@lst.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_r1uht59bv8ekoy91hatcoqpc1468923715564emailandroidcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd54.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SszGZtGeQ7SvPOoJ-lXeZ5Bj1fs>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:22:21 -0000

Ok, although that results in client code having to deal with multiple logical block sizes. The transition from 512 to 4k has been sufficiently involved and lengthy that introduction of yet another logical block size in the foreseeable future seems rather unlikely. I'm ok with either approach.

Thanks, --David ++Sent from Android smartphone ...


-------- Original message --------
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date: 7/19/16 10:37 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, nfsv4@ietf.org, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:26:38AM +0000, Black, David wrote:
> - Yes, making 4k alignment a MUST would be a fine thing to do now.

Can we converge on a MUST for the device logical block size, be that
512, 4k or any other value that might happen in the future?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email