From: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
To: "dwysocha@redhat.com" <dwysocha@redhat.com>
CC: Dave Chiluk <chiluk@canonical.com>,
        "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFSv4: Use exponential backoff delay for NFS4_ERRDELAY
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] NFSv4: Use exponential backoff delay for NFS4_ERRDELAY
Thread-Index: AQHOQS4lo0tL+fbtF0O0TvVaTEJt85jmWGMAgAAHNgCAAAtSgIAA5lsAgAAQoAA=
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:19:09 +0000
Message-ID: <1366895944.4719.17.camel@leira.trondhjem.org>
References: <1366836949-18465-1-git-send-email-chiluk@canonical.com>
	 <1366838926.22397.25.camel@leira.trondhjem.org>
	 <5178549A.7010402@canonical.com>
	 <1366842905.22397.49.camel@leira.trondhjem.org>
	 <1366892374.26249.294.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1366892374.26249.294.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-ID: <8A24ADB66CAA5449B5260B21EEB25FFA@tahoe.netapp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4569
Lines: 89

On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 08:19 -0400, David Wysochanski wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 22:35 +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 16:54 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > > On 04/24/2013 04:28 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 15:55 -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> > > >> Changing the retry to start at NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN and exponentially grow
> > > >> to NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX allow for faster handling of these error conditions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Additionally this alleviates an interoperability problem with the AIX NFSv4
> > > >> Server.  The AIX server frequently (2 out of 3) returns NFS4ERR_DELAY, on a
> > > >> close when it happens in close proximity to a RELEASE_LOCKOWNER.  This would
> > > >> cause a linux client to hang for 15 seconds.
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Dave,
> > > > 
> > > > The AIX server is not being motivated by any requirements in the NFSv4
> > > > spec here, so I fail to see the reason why the behaviour that you
> > > > describe can justify changing the client. It is not at all obvious to me
> > > > that we should be retrying aggressively when NFSv4 servers return
> > > > NFS4ERR_DELAY. What makes 1/10sec more correct in these situations than
> > > > the exising 15 seconds?
> > > 
> > > I agree with you that AIX is at fault, and that the preferable situation
> > > for the linux client would be for AIX to not return NFS4ERR_DELAY in
> > > this use case.  I have attached a simple program that causes exacerbates
> > > the problem on the AIX server.  I have already had a conference call
> > > with AIX NFS development about this issue, where I vehemently tried to
> > > convince them to fix their server.  Unfortunately as I don't have much
> > > reputation in the NFS community, I was unable to convince them to do the
> > > right thing.  I would be more than happy to set up another call, if
> > > someone higher up in the linux NFS hierarchy would be willing to
> > > participate.
> > 
> > I'd think that if they have customers that want to use Linux clients,
> > then those customers are likely to have more influence. This is entirely
> > a consequence of _their_ design decisions, quite frankly, since
> > returning NFS4ERR_DELAY in the above situation is downright silly. The
> > server designers _know_ that the RELEASE_LOCKOWNER will finish whatever
> > it is doing fairly quickly; it's not as if the CLOSE wouldn't have to do
> > the exact same state manipulations anyway...
> > 
> > > That being said, I think implementing an exponential backoff is an
> > > improvement in the client regardless of what AIX is doing.  If a server
> > > needs only 2 seconds to process a request for which NFS4ERR_DELAY was
> > > returned, this algorithm would get the client back and running after
> > > only 2.1 seconds of elapsed time.  Whereas the current dumb algorithm
> > > would simply wait 15 seconds.  This is the reason that I implemented
> > > this change.
> > 
> > Right, but my point above is that _in_general_ if we don't know why the
> > server is returning NFS4ERR_DELAY, then how can we attach any retry
> > numbers at all? HSM systems, for instance, have very different latencies
> > than the above and were the reason for inventing NFS3ERR_JUKEBOX in the
> > first place.
> > 
> 
> Agreed we can't know why the server is returning NFS4ERR_DELAY so it's
> hard to pick a retry number.  Can you explain the rationale for the
> current 15 seconds delay?  Was it just for simplicity or something else?
> 

Our expectation for NFS4ERR_DELAY event that are not listed in
RFC3530/RFC5661 is that it should be rare, but is expected on average to
last significantly longer than an RPC round-trip between the server and
client.
The other constraint was that we needed a number which is shorter than
the lease period so that we don't have to keep sending RENEWs. 

The 2 main cases we thought we'd have to deal with were:

- HSM systems fetching data from a tape backup or something similar
- Idmappers needing to refill their cache from LDAP/NIS/...

We did not expect servers to be using NFS4ERR_DELAY as a generic tool
for avoiding mutexes. That sounds like great a business opportunity for
the network switch vendors, but a poor one for everyone else...

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com
www.netapp.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/