[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802041530150.3034@hp.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:45:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Well, speaking as a complete nutter who just finished the bare bones of an
> NFSv4 userland server[1]... it depends on your approach.
You definitely are a complete nutter ;)
> If the userland server is the _only_ one accessing the data[2] -- i.e. the
> database server model where ls(1) shows a couple multi-gigabyte files or a raw
> partition -- then it's easy to get all the semantics right, including file
> handles. You're not racing with local kernel fileserving.
It's not really simple in general even then. The problems come with file
handles, and two big issues in particular:
- handling a reboot (of the server) without impacting the client really
does need a "look up by file handle" operation (which you can do by
logging the pathname to filehandle translation, but it certainly gets
problematic).
- non-Unix-like filesystems don't necessarily have a stable "st_ino"
field (ie it may change over a rename or have no meaning what-so-ever,
things like that), and that makes trying to generate a filehandle
really interesting for them.
I do agree that it's possible - we obviously _did_ have a user-level NFSD
for a long while, after all - but it's quite painful if you want to handle
things well. Only allowing access through the NFSD certainly helps a lot,
but still doesn't make it quite as trivial as you claim ;)
Of course, I think you can make NFSv4 to use volatile filehandles instead
of the traditional long-lived ones, and that really should avoid almost
all of the problems with doing a NFSv4 server in user space. However, I'd
expect there to be clients that don't do the whole volatile thing, or
support the file handle becoming stale only at certain well-defined points
(ie after renames, not at random reboot times).
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists