From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: stuck/hung nfsv4 mounts Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:20:29 -0500 Message-ID: <490F792D.6010208@redhat.com> References: <1225724721.2247.29.camel@brian-laptop> <1225731544.6958.6.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20081103172529.GA9008@citi.umich.edu> <1225733834.6958.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <2C93A491-1277-42B6-9CED-FC06A85174D5@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Trond Myklebust , Jim Rees , "Brian J. Murrell" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:56840 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751096AbYKCWUv (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:20:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <2C93A491-1277-42B6-9CED-FC06A85174D5@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Chuck Lever wrote: > On Nov 3, 2008, at Nov 3, 2008, 12:37 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 12:25 -0500, Jim Rees wrote: >>> Trond Myklebust wrote: >>> >>> BTW: NFSv4 + soft == BAD BAD BAD! >>> >>> Maybe this combination should be prohibited. Does it make any sense >>> given >>> the stateful nature of v4? >> >> It might make sense if we were to fix up the granularity of the recovery >> routines so that we are able to recover all the state associated with >> just a single open owner or lock owner. Currently we'd have to recover >> all the state associated with that server. >> >> IOW: we might be able to fix things up in the future, but right now, >> NFSv4+soft is not a good idea. > > Two cents worth: Until NFSv4+soft works reasonably well, I wouldn't > have any problem with making "soft" a no-op for nfs4 mounts. It may be the right thing to do in the short term, but it will generate calls to support organizations. Anyone trying it will wonder why it doesn't work "as it used to". That sort of thing. When that happens, we will be forced to do something and not at our choice of time. Perhaps we should deny such mount attempts because at least that would be obvious what was happening? Perhaps we should also deny NFSv4 mounting over UDP? ps