Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Wed, 16 August 2017 09:04 UTC
Return-Path: <hch@lst.de>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6744132678 for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 GFhk_VRoHwQO for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:04:47 -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 F0B62132394 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id C9F3D68B7C; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:04:44 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:04:44 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Message-ID: <20170816090444.GA21357@lst.de>
References: <418E308E-5057-499A-B403-38486BDEF772@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <418E308E-5057-499A-B403-38486BDEF772@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/l_R2fC4WhdsnsH7ZInIJDPPUODM>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-ietf-nfsv4-layout-types
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:04:49 -0000
I don't have a whole lot of time to spare, so this is a very narrow review with the focus on interactions with the scsi and rdma layout types. The first thing I noticed is that section 3 claims: "There have been no published specifications for control protocols as yet." which I don't think is true any more. The SCSI layout fully specifies the interaction between the MDS and the storage device, so it should be considered to include a control protocol. Note that in terms of specifications the it only uses SCSI and thus the storage protocol, but it uses different features in the SCSI specifications that are designed to be a control protocol, and the particular way in the MDS has to use SCSI persistent reservations could be considered a protocol by itself. So the paragraph below about loose coupling doesn't really apply in this case either. All of that is pretty editorial though as it doesn't change any of the fundamentals of the section. I'm not sure what the point of "Whether the metadata server allows access over other protocols (e.g., NFSv3, Server Message Block (SMB), etc) is strictly an implementation choice, just as it is in the case of any other (i.e., non-pNFS-supporting) NFSv4.1 server." is. While the statement is true nothing in NFS talks about cross-protocol access to servers, so I don't think it matters. Section 4.1 probably needs an update to include the SCSI layout given that it claims to document the existing layout types. The block layout section is more or less valid for the SCSI layout as well, so I would suggest to handle the SCSI layout in the same section. Another aspect that might be worth mentioning somewhere is that layouts may revoke access to the whole storage device for fencing when a layout recall is not acted upon.
- [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-ietf-nf… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… Christoph Hellwig
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… David Noveck
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… hch
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… Thomas Haynes
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… Chuck Lever
- Re: [nfsv4] Review comments for WGLC of draft-iet… David Noveck