IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Tue, 19 July 2016 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <hch@lst.de>
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 B21D512DCE6; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 01:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6bkefHmJtwuu; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 01:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53A4612DCDC; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 01:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 6951B68D1D; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:37:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:37:24 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout-06.txt> (Parallel NFS (pNFS) SCSI Layout) to Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <20160719083724.GA21312@lst.de>
References: <20160628150730.24155.95557.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F5D4F49@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <20160718043512.GA19492@lst.de> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F5F15F6@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F5F15F6@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qnQsjujWNip0SHP2KKyFweMou5w>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nfsv4-scsi-layout@ietf.org>, "nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org>, "nfsv4@ietf.org" <nfsv4@ietf.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
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 08:37:29 -0000

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