From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [NFS] NFS Digest, Vol 18, Issue 70 (NFS performance problems) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:30:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20071203213004.GH28201@fieldses.org> References: <47434ED7.4010100@redhat.com> <47435049.1010800@redhat.com> <47445727.5090705@oracle.com> <474A3D6B.2060208@redhat.com> <20071126050230.GD21120@fieldses.org> <18254.19187.470275.538680@notabene.brown> <1196314230.7950.42.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <475039E4.5070903@redhat.com> <20071203203139.GF28201@fieldses.org> <4754715E.9050400@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: chuck.lever@oracle.com, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, NeilBrown , Trond Myklebust To: Wendy Cheng Return-path: Received: from neil.brown.name ([220.233.11.133]:56259 "EHLO neil.brown.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750896AbXLCVal (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:30:41 -0500 Received: from brown by neil.brown.name with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IzIs9-0007So-1K for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:30:37 +1100 In-Reply-To: <4754715E.9050400@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 04:13:02PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote: > Or use cluster (a backup server is quite affordable nowadays) ? Was about > to kick off a new discussion about this ... > > I did a prototype about 4 years ago on 2.4 kernel where the RPC reply cache > (slightly modified to include raw NFS request packets) was mirrored by > backup server (in memory). The reply was delayed to go back to client until > the mirrored reply cache entry was acknowledged by the backup server. Upon > crash, the backup server piggybacked its logic on ext3's journal recovery > code. For reply cache entries not replayed or not recognized by jbd, nfsd > resent the NFS raw requests down to filesystem just like any new arrived > requested. The prototype code was able to gain at least 70% of the async > mode performance without losing the data. > > One of other issues with our current linux-based NFS cluster failover is > also right in this arena - that is, upon failover, the non-idempotent could > introduce stale filehandle errors that have been causing headaches with > some of the applications. How exactly do the stale filehandles happen? > So mirroring RPC reply cache (to another machine) > seems to be attractive. > > Any comment ? Mind I write this up and send out for discussion ? I'd be interested? --b. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs _______________________________________________ Please note that nfs@lists.sourceforge.net is being discontinued. Please subscribe to linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org instead. http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-nfs