[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2DFDFFC6-F682-4127-8684-76CB7AF43494@alex.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:25:12 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>
Cc: Alex Bligh <alex@...x.org.uk>, Wouter Verhelst <w@...r.be>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Markus Pargmann <mpa@...gutronix.de>, kernel-team@...com,
"nbd-general@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<nbd-general@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Nbd] [RESEND][PATCH 0/5] nbd improvements
Eric,
> I doubt that qemu-nbd would ever want to support the situation with more
> than one client connection writing to the same image at the same time;
> the implications of sorting out data consistency between multiple
> writers is rather complex and not worth coding into qemu. So I think
> qemu would probably prefer to just prohibit the multiple writer
> situation.
Yeah, I was thinking about a 'no multiple connection' flag.
> And while multiple readers with no writer should be fine,
> I'm not even sure if multiple readers plus one writer can always be made
> to appear sane (if there is no coordination between the different
> connections, on an image where the writer changes AA to BA then flushes
> then changes to BB, it is still feasible that a reader could see AB
> (pre-flush state of the first sector, post-flush changes to the second
> sector, even though the writer never flushed that particular content to
> disk).
Agree
--
Alex Bligh
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (843 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists