[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Cluster-devel] Re: [NFS] [PATCH 3/4 Revised] NLM - kernel lockd-statd changes

Olaf Kirch wrote:
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:24, Wendy Cheng wrote:
I think in term of correctness, it's better to send an SM_NOTIFY
for each IP associated with such a set, anyway.
That's exactly what we have been proposing... :) .. We'll rely heavily on HA callout program to tell us which client uses which (server) floating IP.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your patch records every IP
used by the client, rather than the *all* the IPs related to the set of
file systems being moved. So if there are several IPs for this set, you
will end up sending notifications only from those the client happened
to have talked to.

Yes. Then why should we SM_NOTIFY the clients that do not have the associated locks (and introducing more possible reclaiming delay) ? Be aware that failover normally has timing constraints - it needs to get finished within a sensible time interval.

-- Wendy
My point was, you move a set of file systems A, B and C, with
IPs X, Y, Z. You know what the addresses are, so from a
robustness point of view your best bet is to send SM_NOTIFY
messages from IPs X, Y, Z, regardless of whether the client has
been talking to all of them, or just one.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]