Subject: RE: [nfsv4] Global namespace for v4.1?

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:18:08 -0800

Mike Eisler wrote:
> Implementing fs_locations completely is a massive piece of work.
> Not only do you have to do the upcall, but you have to be prepared to
> get new file handles and/or re-establish state. 

As far as re-establishing state, I don't think this is so big, given
that you have to be able to re-establish state when the server goes 
down and to do a credible v4 client you do have to be able to re-establish 
state when the server goes down.  So I think the same logic will work.
I think this is something that requires a lot of testing effort but not
much implementation effort.

As far as getting new file handles, I would put this, not as part of 
implementing fs_locations (completely), but as part of implementing 
volatile file handles.  If you don't support volatile file handles in
general, then I don't see burdening fs_locations support with it,
unless there are special reasons (e.g. important servers that implement
that form of migration) to do so.  Personally, I still consider
volatile file handles to be in the interesting-experiment category.

To me, the new file handles thing is the same as supporting migration
between servers supporting LIPKEY.  That isn't part of full fs_locations
support unless and until you support LIPKEY in general, i.e. in the
non-migration case.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4