Return-Path: <linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:60858 "EHLO fieldses.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753643AbcEZPWz (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 26 May 2016 11:22:55 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:22:53 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Andy Adamson <androsadamson@gmail.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        "Adamson, Andy" <William.Adamson@netapp.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Configuring fs_locations on Linux upstream server pseudo fs for
 session trunking
Message-ID: <20160526152253.GC21450@fieldses.org>
References: <04273F60-806B-4E12-B097-388C346F2DED@oracle.com>
 <40E6E131-029E-4337-A235-B1DB5CA687AA@netapp.com>
 <20160525184837.GA15210@fieldses.org>
 <9614D777-9C75-4FBB-BD06-4EC366273B49@oracle.com>
 <CAHVgHyVEx1fUP36tHaB-uBMJmC3gqCeQ5PSgaHm9XrAWQqerqw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <CAHVgHyVEx1fUP36tHaB-uBMJmC3gqCeQ5PSgaHm9XrAWQqerqw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:54:50AM -0400, Andy Adamson wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 25, 2016, at 2:48 PM, bfields@fieldses.org wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 05:29:35PM +0000, Adamson, Andy wrote:
> >>> Anna Schumaker who reviewed my client side session trunking patchset, wants a full featured version of both the client and the server session trunking pieces before accepting the session trunking feature upstream. To that end, I want to implement the server mountd V4ROOT processing of an fs_locations configuration to satisfy an fs_locations request on the pseudo fs.
> >>>
> >>> The forwarded message is from an email stream between Bruce, Chuck and I concerning the server pseufo fs fs_locations configuration that I’m now sharing with the list.
> >>>
> >>> Some background:
> >>>
> >>> The recent "NFSV4.1,2 session trunking” Version-5 patch set sent to the list notes (in patch 00/10):
> >>>
> >>> The pseudo-fs GETATTR(fs_locations) probe session trunking
> >>> was tested against a Linux server with a pseudo-fs
> >>> export stanza (e.g. a stanza with the fsid=0 or fsid=root
> >>> export option) and a replicas= export option
> >>> (replicas=<path1>@<server1>:<path2>@<server2>..)
> >>> Note that this configuration is for testing only. A future
> >>> patchset will add the replicas= configuration to the
> >>> NFSEXP_V4ROOT nfsd and mountd processing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are several ideas on how to accomplish mountd/V4ROOT fs_locations configuration in the forwarded message. See inline.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: Configuring fs_locations on Linux upstream server
> >>>> Date: May 6, 2016 at 4:31:00 PM EDT
> >>>> To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
> >>>> Cc: "Adamson, Andy" <William.Adamson@netapp.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On May 6, 2016, at 4:16 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:20:12PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >>>>>> Seems like when a server does not return a list, that is
> >>>>>> information the client can use: basically, there is no
> >>>>>> ability to do any session trunking. It has to be set up
> >>>>>> explicitly; is that a bad thing, operationally?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I like the idea of it being opt in on the server.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Suppose the server transparently starts advertising all available
> >>>>> addresses for session trunking.  It's not hard to imagine cases where
> >>>>> that would go wrong.  E.g., maybe the server has the odd wireless or
> >>>>> 100Mb or other interface that happens to work but that's slow.  Then
> >>>>> somebody upgrades their server and performance goes down and it may take
> >>>>> them a while to figure out why.  Whereas if they'd had to opt in they'd
> >>>>> probably have avoided advertising an inappropriate interface.  Or at
> >>>>> least they'd have a better chance of figuring out that turning on
> >>>>> trunking was what caused the problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd rather not force people to export "/" explicitly, though.  It's fine
> >>>>> for testing, but:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    - I don't think we give a way to do an explicit V4ROOT export,
> >>>>>      so they'd be exposing their entire root partition.  We could
> >>>>>      fix that, but
> >>>>>    - the pseudofs just seems to me like something people shouldn't
> >>>>>      normally have to think about.  It's a protocol implementation
> >>>>>      detail, I'd rather hide it.  It'd be to easy to configure it a
> >>>>>      little wrong, I think.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We can still do this by adding a replicas= option to the / export, but
> >>>>> we can let rpc.mountd do that internally instead of making the admin add
> >>>>> it to /etc/exports.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But then you still need a way for the admin to tell rpc.mountd to cook
> >>>>> up the replicas= option.....  I'm not sure what that should look like.
> >>>
> >>> Idea 1: extra syntax in /etc/exports
> >>
> >> It's not really export-specific information.  I wonder if it'd be better
> >> to pass it on the rpc.nfsd commandline?
> >>
> >>       rpc.nfsd --multipath-set="192.168.0.1,192.168.0.2"
> >>
> >> (and then that can be configured in /etc/sysconfig/nfs or whatever)?
> 
> Is this (the rpc.nfsd command line and /etc/sysconfig/nfs entry) the
> preferred way?
> Is /etc/sysconfig/nfs read upon reboot?

Yes.  (Well, the details are distribution-dependent, I think it's up to
the /usr/lib/systemd/scripts/nfs-utils_env.sh script referenced in
nfs-utils/systemd/nfs-config.service.)

The annoying thing about putting it on the rpc.nfsd commandline is that
it's mountd, not nfsd, that manages the NFSv4 pseudofs, and would be
responsible for cooking up the fs_locations info.

Let me think about it a little more....

--b.