Re: Grace period

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]




09.04.2012 19:27, Jeff Layton пишет:

If you allow one container to hand out conflicting locks while another
container is allowing reclaims, then you can end up with some very
difficult to debug silent data corruption. That's the worst possible
outcome, IMO. We really need to actively keep people from shooting
themselves in the foot here.

One possibility might be to only allow filesystems to be exported from
a single container at a time (and allow that to be overridable somehow
once we have a working active/active serving solution). With that, you
may be able limp along with a per-container grace period handling
scheme like you're proposing.


Ok then. Keeping people from shooting themselves here sounds reasonable.
And I like the idea of exporting a filesystem only from once per network namespace. Looks like there should be a list of pairs "exported superblock - network namespace". And if superblock is exported already in other namespace, then export in new namespace have to be skipped (replaced?) with appropriate warning (error?) message shown in log. Or maybe we even should deny starting of NFS server if one of it's exports is shared already by other NFS server "instance"? But any of these ideas would be easy to implement in RAM, and thus it suits only for containers...

--
Best regards,
Stanislav Kinsbursky
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Info]    [Yosemite Photos]    [POF Sucks]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux