ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block-10

2008-12-08 14:55:48
Hi David -

I would prefer not to do this.  It's fairly easy to make a mistake in
this environment that has the client looking in the wrong place for
the volume identification, risking a false positive, and unpleasant
results.  Beyond this, removing the requirement that server and client
have the same understanding of the disk size may create situations
in which different clients have different ideas of the disk size; that
seems like needless complexity, so all clients need to have the same
understanding of disk size, and adding the server to that understanding
is a small and reasonable step in pursuit of robustness.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether you add full support for
negative disk offsets despite potential implementation difficulties, or
whether you prohibit such support in order to avoid implementation bugs.
Personally, I would go for the former option -- and add text that warns
about related implementation challenges.  But I won't complain if you
choose the latter option, of course.

As Hannes has already pointed out, there's quite a bit of crash
detection and recovery material in the main NFSv4.1 draft, including
descriptions of how to recover layouts in general (layouts are among
the resources that a client can reclaim during a grace period after
server restart).  Hence this draft only adds material specific to
the block/volume layout.  We'll add a sentence or two in order to
explain this and point to the material in the main NFSv4.1 draft.

Right, a reference to the document that contains the necessary background
information is all that's necessary here.

We'll expand the first uses of the four acronyms.

Perfect.

- Christian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>