[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DA0880DA-700F-4989-9326-68F5F7A55F25@alex.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:44:29 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>, Wouter Verhelst <w@...r.be>,
"nbd-general@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<nbd-general@...ts.sourceforge.net>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mpa@...gutronix.de, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements
> On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:41, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:39:11PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
>> That's probably right in the case of file-based back ends that
>> are running on a Linux OS. But gonbdserver for instance supports
>> (e.g.) Ceph based backends, where each connection might be talking
>> to a completely separate ceph node, and there may be no cache
>> consistency between connections.
>
> Yes, if you don't have a cache coherent backend you are generally
> screwed with a multiqueue protocol.
I wonder if the ability to support multiqueue should be visible
in the negotiation stage. That would allow the client to refuse
to select multiqueue where it isn't safe.
Wouter?
--
Alex Bligh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists