Re: [nfsv4] [FedFS] Meeting Minutes, 9/30/2010

[Trond Myklebust <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 09:50 -0400, James Lentini wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 17:33 -0400, James Lentini wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > Some convention for the NFS server's reply in this case should be 
> > > > agreed upon outside of the ongoing FedFS discussion.
> > > 
> > > I think another way to phrase this question is: How does an NFS server 
> > > indicate that a file system has moved to an unknown location? One 
> > > obvious possibility is to return a zero element locations array in the 
> > > fs_locations structure.
> > 
> > NFS4ERR_STALE is the usual response. If you don't know where the 
> > filesystem was migrated to, then what you have is not a migration 
> > event. It is an unexport of the partition.
> 
> Suppose the server waits to resolve the junction until a GETATTR that 
> includes fs_locations[_info]. If the server has already responded with 
> an NFS4ERR_MOVED, will an NFS4ERR_STALE return for the GETATTR be a 
> reasonable response to the client?

I'm not sure I understand. If the location of the filesystem is unknown,
then why would the server reply with NFS4ERR_MOVED in the first place?

That said, I believe that the answer to your question is 'yes'. See for
instance the discussion in section 4.2.2 in RFC3530.