Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:05:04 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
CC:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>, avishay@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	osd-dev@...n-osd.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: pNFS rant (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] exofs: Kbuild, Headers and osd utils)

Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> No can do. exofs is meant to be a reference implementation of a pNFS-objects
> file serving system. Have you read the spec of pNFS-objects layout? they define
> RAID 0, 1, 5, and 6. In pNFS the MDS is suppose to be able to write the data
> for its clients as NFS, so it needs to have all the infra structure and knowledge
> of an Client pNFS-object layout drive.

Yes, I have studied pNFS!  I plan to add v4.1 and pNFS support to my NFS 
server, once v4.0 support is working well.


pNFS The Theory:   is wise and necessary:  permit clients to directly 
connect to data storage, rather than copying through the metadata 
server(s).  This is what every distributed filesystem is doing these 
days -- direct to data server for bulk data read/write.

pNFS The Specification:   is an utter piece of shit.  I can only presume 
some shady backroom deal in a smoke-filled room was the reason this saw 
the light of day.


In a sane world, NFS clients would speak... NFS.

In the crazy world of pNFS, NFS clients are now forced to speak NFS, 
SCSI, RAID, and any number of proprietary layout types.  When will HTTP 
be added to the list?  :)

But anything beyond the NFS protocol for talking client <-> data servers 
is code bloat complexity madness for an NFS client that wishes to be 
compatible with "most of the NFS 4.1 world".

An ideal NFS client for pNFS should be asked to do these two things, and 
nothing more:

1) send metadata transactions to one or more metadata servers, using 
well-known NFS protocol

2) send data to one or more data servers, using well-known NFS protocol 
subset designed for storage (v4.1, section 13.6)

But no.

pNFS has forced a huge complexity on the NFS client, by permitting an 
unbounded number of network protocols.  A "layout plugin" layer is 
required.  SCSI and OSD support are REQUIRED for any reasonably 
compatible setup going forward.

But even more than the technical complexity, this is the first time in 
NFS history that NFS has required a protocol besides... NFS.

pNFS means that a useful. compatible NFS client must know all these 
storage protocols, in addition to NFS.

Furthermore, enabling proprietary layout types means that it is easy for 
a "compatible" v4.1 client to be denied parallel access to data 
available to other "compatible" v4.1 clients:

	Client A: Linux, fully open source

	Client B: Linux, with closed source module for
		  layout type SuperWhizBang storage

	Both Client A and Client B can claim to be NFS v4.1 and pNFS
	compatible,
	yet Client A must read data through the metadata
	server because it lacks the SuperWhizBang storage plugin.

pNFS means a never-ending arms race for the best storage layout, where 
NFS clients are inevitably compatibly with a __random subset__ of total 
available layout types.  pNFS will be a continuing train wreck of 
fly-by-night storage companies, and their pet layout types & storage 
protocols.

It is a support nightmare, an admin nightmare, a firewall nightmare, a 
client implementor's nightmare, but a storage vendor's wet dream.

NFS was never beautiful, but at least until v4.0 it was well known and 
widely cross-compatible.  And only required one network protocol: NFS.

	Jeff



--
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