Return-Path: Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:32147 "EHLO acsinet15.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753190Ab1HBOxp convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:53:45 -0400 Subject: Re: State of NFSv4 VolatileFilehandles Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Chuck Lever In-Reply-To: <4E37E66D.90102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:53:33 -0400 Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com Message-Id: <45F4FC20-ED44-4430-A5A9-E06459A194F3@oracle.com> References: <4E37E66D.90102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Venkateswararao Jujjuri Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Venkateswararao Jujjuri wrote: > We at IBM receiving multiple customer requests for supporting NFSv4 server migration. > I have referred to Trond and Chuck's presentations at 2011 Connectathon and there appears to be > sizable work remaining. I am not sure if there is any progress made since those talks. > > I would like to open up a discussion thread on the mailing list to understand the latest status. > Also would like to get the input on the Volatile Filehandles (VFH). I searched the mailing list, and could not > find any recent discussion on this. > > Some discussion points: > - What are the pieces left to attain full client/server support for seamless server migration? The client migration implementation is code complete and in test now. This includes both minor version 0 and 1. We don't have any mv1 servers to test with at this time, so that support is provisional. I hope to have patches ready for the 3.2 merge window, but you can see what I've got now on git.linux-nfs.org. A problem is that there are corner cases in the v4.0 migration specification that are still unresolved. We are working with the NFSv4 WG to get these addressed. But I expect some minor changes even after the patches are merged upstream. We don't have firm plans for a server migration implementation on Linux at this time, but Bruce can maybe say more about that. > - Any discussion/sugestions on the way to implement VFH? As described in RFC 3530 sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4? I think we are avoiding volatile file handles as long as possible. We don't have plans to implement them at the moment. > - Are there any community efforts going / about to start in this area? so that we can partner and get > things done instead of duplicating the work. > > Thanks a lot for your help > JV -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com