Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:32:57 -0400
From:   "bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dai.ngo@oracle.com" <dai.ngo@oracle.com>,
        "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: automatic freeing of space on ENOSPC
Message-ID: <20210629183257.GA1926@fieldses.org>
References: <20210628194908.GB6776@fieldses.org>
 <9f1263b46d5c38b9590db1e2a04133a83772bc50.camel@hammerspace.com>
 <20210629011200.GA14733@fieldses.org>
 <162493102550.7211.15170485925982544813@noble.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <162493102550.7211.15170485925982544813@noble.neil.brown.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:43:45AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> I wonder how important this is.  If an NFS client unlinks a file that it
> has open, it will be silly_renamed, and if the client then goes silent,
> it might never be removed.  So we already theoretically have a
> possibilty of ENOSPC due to silent clients.  Have we heard of this
> becoming a problem?

Oh, that's a good point.  I've seen complaints about sillyrename files,
but I can't recall ever seen a single complaint about their causing
ENOSPC.

> Is there reason to think that the Courteous server changes will make
> this problem more likely? 

So I guess the only new cases the courteous server will introduce are
even less likely (probably just the case where a file is unlinked by a
client other than the one that has it open).

So I think doing nothing for now is an acceptable alternative....

--b.