Return-Path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:43372 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751446Ab0JASAV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:00:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4CA621A4.2040508@almaden.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:00:04 -0700 From: Marc Eshel To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: Benny Halevy , Boaz Harrosh , Tigran Mkrtchyan , NFS list , linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org, Fred Isaman Subject: Re: pNFS DS session References: <4CA34883.40005@desy.de> <4CA34B93.2010100@panasas.com> <4CA44AAA.4030803@panasas.com> <4CA45462.1070503@desy.de> <4CA455C4.4030705@panasas.com> <4CA57BC6.9030701@desy.de> <4CA5A012.2090404@panasas.com> <4CA5D537.30300@panasas.com> <4CA600F4.2010006@almaden.ibm.com> <20101001171012.GB30570@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20101001171012.GB30570@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On 10/1/2010 10:10 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 08:40:36AM -0700, Marc Eshel wrote: >> On 10/1/2010 5:33 AM, Benny Halevy wrote: >>> On 2010-10-01 10:47, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>>> On 10/01/2010 08:12 AM, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote: >>>>> On 10/01/2010 06:17 AM, Marc Eshel wrote: >>>>>> Hi Benny, >>>>>> >>>>>> Running connectathon I see that some times the clients decides to destroy >>>>>> the session with the DS. The test continue and the session is >>>>>> re-established. It looks like layout return reduces the hold on device >>>>>> info the reduces the hold on the client struct which decide to destroy the >>>>>> session. Is that a known problem? >>>>>> >>>> Yes, I want to emphasize on Marks words: "a known *problem*" >>> Marc, assuming the code behaves as expected, does this cause any other badness >>> like the GETATTRs you see going out to the DS? >>> >>> Benny >>> >> No i don't see any "badness" the test continues without errors and >> this problem is not related to the GETATTRs I see on the DS but I >> would consider destroying the session in short run of couple of >> minutes some times more than one time as something bad. > Why? > > I wouldn't expect session destruction/creation to be *that* expensive. I assumed that it is inexpensive. We are talking about potential destruction/creation of session from every DS for each file IO if there is no overlap in holding layouts, right ? > --b. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >