Return-Path: Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:40915 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751042Ab0JAPky (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:40:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4CA600F4.2010006@almaden.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:40:36 -0700 From: Marc Eshel To: Benny Halevy CC: Boaz Harrosh , Tigran Mkrtchyan , NFS list , linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org, Fred Isaman Subject: Re: pNFS DS session References: <4C7BDD8C.40509@panasas.com> <4CA31DC3.8070300@panasas.com> <4CA34830.1040703@desy.de> <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> In-Reply-To: <4CA5D537.30300@panasas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 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. Marc. >> I have objected strongly to this new "fixture" by Fred and backed up by Benny. >> They decided to only hold a deviceid as long as a layout references it. And >> not like before, until unmount. I think they are totally wrong with regard >> to current servers and implementation and a setup that might enjoy what is >> done now, will not exist for at least 3 years or more. >> >> An argument was made that current code is more simple. But I have demonstrated >> that all that is needed is a one-line get_ref at device add. And that iteration >> on all devices at umount time that was there before and removed in latest code. >> >> !!! >> Boaz >> >> >>> Just wan to confirm that we see this as well (pnfs-submit and >>> pnfs-all-latest). >>> >>> Tigran. >>>> Thanks, Marc. >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >