Re: Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block-10

[Christian Vogt <christian.vogt at ericsson.com>]

Hi David -

> I would prefer not to do this.  It's fairly easy to make a mistake in
> this environment that has the client looking in the wrong place for
> the volume identification, risking a false positive, and unpleasant
> results.  Beyond this, removing the requirement that server and client
> have the same understanding of the disk size may create situations
> in which different clients have different ideas of the disk size; that
> seems like needless complexity, so all clients need to have the same
> understanding of disk size, and adding the server to that  
> understanding
> is a small and reasonable step in pursuit of robustness.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether you add full support for
negative disk offsets despite potential implementation difficulties, or
whether you prohibit such support in order to avoid implementation bugs.
Personally, I would go for the former option -- and add text that warns
about related implementation challenges.  But I won't complain if you
choose the latter option, of course.

> As Hannes has already pointed out, there's quite a bit of crash
> detection and recovery material in the main NFSv4.1 draft, including
> descriptions of how to recover layouts in general (layouts are among
> the resources that a client can reclaim during a grace period after
> server restart).  Hence this draft only adds material specific to
> the block/volume layout.  We'll add a sentence or two in order to
> explain this and point to the material in the main NFSv4.1 draft.

Right, a reference to the document that contains the necessary  
background
information is all that's necessary here.

> We'll expand the first uses of the four acronyms.

Perfect.

- Christian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf