From: Wendy Cheng Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4 Revised] NLM - kernel lockd-statd changes Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:09:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4624E335.7050907@redhat.com> References: <46156FA0.4030506@redhat.com> <200704171352.27620.okir@lst.de> <4624CA93.4040307@redhat.com> <200704171651.36497.okir@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Neil Brown , cluster-devel@redhat.com, Lon Hohberger , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net To: Olaf Kirch Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HdpfD-0000bp-An for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:32:15 -0700 Received: from externalmx-1.sourceforge.net ([12.152.184.25]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1Hdpf9-0006ja-Lw for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:32:17 -0700 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by externalmx-1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1Hdpf3-0006xe-AL for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:32:06 -0700 In-Reply-To: <200704171651.36497.okir@lst.de> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Olaf Kirch wrote: > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:24, Wendy Cheng wrote: > >>> I think in term of correctness, it's better to send an SM_NOTIFY >>> for each IP associated with such a set, anyway. >>> >>> >> That's exactly what we have been proposing... :) .. We'll rely heavily >> on HA callout program to tell us which client uses which (server) >> floating IP. >> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your patch records every IP > used by the client, rather than the *all* the IPs related to the set of > file systems being moved. So if there are several IPs for this set, you > will end up sending notifications only from those the client happened > to have talked to. > Yes. Then why should we SM_NOTIFY the clients that do not have the associated locks (and introducing more possible reclaiming delay) ? Be aware that failover normally has timing constraints - it needs to get finished within a sensible time interval. -- Wendy > My point was, you move a set of file systems A, B and C, with > IPs X, Y, Z. You know what the addresses are, so from a > robustness point of view your best bet is to send SM_NOTIFY > messages from IPs X, Y, Z, regardless of whether the client has > been talking to all of them, or just one. > > Olaf > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs