From: Tom Tucker <tom@opengridcomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 3/14] knfsd: prepare reply per transport
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:26:27 -0500
Message-ID: <1179415587.23385.9.camel@trinity.ogc.int>
References: <20070516192047.GI9626@sgi.com>
	<C270E33B.3042D%tom@opengridcomputing.com>
	<20070517075342.GG27247@sgi.com>
	<7619F3097FAB384287CF636FF92D0CA10976B38B@exsvl01.hq.netapp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: "Talpey, Thomas" <Thomas.Talpey@netapp.com>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Peter Leckie <pleckie@melbourne.sgi.com>, Greg Banks <gnb@sgi.com>
To: "Iyer, Rahul" <Rahul.Iyer@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <7619F3097FAB384287CF636FF92D0CA10976B38B@exsvl01.hq.netapp.com>
Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net


I think this is worth considering. Since the client can receive requests
in 4.1, the distinction becomes arbitrary.

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 02:16 -0700, Iyer, Rahul wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> I like the idea of a transport switch for the server side. The way I see
> it, it's not just the server, it's also the "callback server" on the
> client that can benefit. 
> 
> I had a question. Maybe it's a dumb question, and I may be way off base,
> but I don't see why we need 2 transport switches - one for the client,
> one for the server? Why not have one? 
> I've written some code to do NFSv4.1 callbacks and wound up implementing
> another "transport". Since in v4.1 it's actually possible for clients to
> send requests (fore-channel) and receive callbacks (back channel) over
> the same connection, I had to "make" another transport that essentially
> did TCP, but used server side conventions for the rpc_xprt_ops send
> routines so that the server could use the existing rpc_call_(a)sync()
> mechanisms. Similarly, on the client side, I had to implement the
> equivalent of the svc_send() routines using the client side xs_tcp_*
> routines. The resultant code is reasonably clean, but screams out
> "inefficiency" because of the small amount of code sharing that was
> actually possible.
> 
> Given this, a unified transport switch would really rock. Both the
> client and the server treat the connection as a "full duplex" (I mean
> can send calls and receive replies on the same connection). One set of
> tcp/udp read/write methods for both the client and server. No more
> svc_send for the server and xs_*_send_request on the client. The one
> true networking way to rule them both! Everything would be much cleaner,
> and since we're going down this path, I assumed it's a feasibility study
> worth doing. Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but this seems doable. After
> all, what we're doing in both cases (client and server) is shoving bits
> down a socket. Is my question justified or am I *way* off base and
> ignorant of some fundamental issues(s)?
> Thanks
> Regards
> Rahul
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Banks [mailto:gnb@sgi.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:54 AM
> > To: Tom Tucker
> > Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List; Talpey, Thomas; Peter Leckie; Greg Banks
> > Subject: Re: [NFS] [RFC,PATCH 3/14] knfsd: prepare reply per transport
> > 
> > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 04:35:07PM -0500, Tom Tucker wrote:
> > > 
> > > Greg:
> > > 
> > > I like this patch organization. I'll replicate this in the 
> > integrated 
> > > tree...
> > 
> > Great.
> > 
> > > > + /* Will be turned off only in gss privacy case: */
> > > > + rqstp->rq_sendfile_ok = 1;
> > > 
> > > I think this belongs in the svc_process logic. It doesn't have 
> > > anything to do with the buffer, but rather whether or not 
> > GSS is turned on.
> > 
> > Fixed.
> > 
> > I'll push a revised patchset including feedback from yourself 
> > and Bruce, to you only, in a few minutes.
> > 
> > Greg.
> > --
> > Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group.
> > Apparently, I'm Bedevere.  Which MPHG character are you?
> > I don't speak for SGI.
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------
> > 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
> > 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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