IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] proposed ADMIN protocol procedure to enumerate server's NSDB store

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com> Thu, 08 July 2010 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A5C3A681D for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1qUbVLzyxvEt for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com (rcsinet10.oracle.com [148.87.113.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13983A68B1 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet13.oracle.com (rcsinet13.oracle.com [148.87.113.125]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o68JwVfZ029976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:58:33 GMT
Received: from acsmt353.oracle.com (acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]) by rcsinet13.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o68J3mlo004286 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:58:29 GMT
Received: from abhmt006.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 410539391278619018; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:56:58 -0700
Received: from oracle.com (/129.153.128.104) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:56:57 -0700
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:59:48 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20100708195948.GH17986@oracle.com>
References: <4C35F555.1060604@oracle.com> <20100708174228.GG17986@oracle.com> <4C361BED.2020903@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C361BED.2020903@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-03-02)
X-Source-IP: acsmt353.oracle.com [141.146.40.153]
X-Auth-Type: Internal IP
X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4C362DE7.01FE:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] proposed ADMIN protocol procedure to enumerate server's NSDB store
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:58:29 -0000

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:41:49PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On 07/ 8/10 01:42 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >Why should one tell the server a max reply size instead of a max number
> >of NSDBs whose params to return?
> 
> Because there is no limit on the size of a single NSDB name.
> 
> >Why shouldn't the server decide how many NSDBs to list in a single RPC
> >result instead?
> 
> The receiving end (the client) may have limited space to receive
> NSDB name information.

Clients could cope even without this maxcount thing.  E.g., the client
app could double its buffer and retry.  But I see that NFSv4 already
uses this same maxcount approach, so this is consistent with NFSv4, so
never mind.

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status