[pnfs] pNFS testing at connectathon

[Iyer, Rahul]

Hi Lisa, 
The last time we tried interoperability testing at the Bakeathon, we
couldn't do I/O. Just to recap, our client couldn't do any I/O because
your server returned NFS4ERR_TRY_LATER on a LAYOUTGET. The reason for
this was that that our client could issue more than one LAYOUTGET per
file. If your server received a LAYOUTGET for a file for which a layout
was already handed to the concerned client, then it returns
NFS4ERR_TRY_LATER. We will work on trying to make sure we don't do this,
however, I do not believe it is illegal for a client to issue more than
one LAYOUTGET for the same file and byte range; at least the spec
doesn't outlaw this.

Could you please look into this?
Regards
Rahul


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iyer, Rahul 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:37 PM
> To: Lisa.Week at Sun.COM
> Cc: pnfs at linux-nfs.org
> Subject: Re: [pnfs] pNFS testing at connectathon
> 
> OK, then -08 is what we'll work with.
> Regards
> Rahul
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lisa Week [mailto:Lisa.Week at Sun.COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:35 PM
> > To: Iyer, Rahul
> > Cc: William A. (Andy) Adamson; pnfs at linux-nfs.org
> > Subject: Re: [pnfs] pNFS testing at connectathon
> > 
> > Hi Rahul,
> > 
> > >I was working of the minorversion1-07 dot-x file. Will it be
> > too much
> > >of a problem for us to stick to this one? I haven't read the
> > -08 dot-x
> > >file yet. I'm yet to integrate the sessions code with pNFS and I'd 
> > >appreciate if I didn't need to go implement new ops, not to
> > mention any
> > >XDR changes, given the remaining time. So, unless it will be
> > a lot of
> > >trouble, I'd like to stick with the -07 dot-x.
> > >  
> > >
> > We have already moved our implementation forward to the
> > minorversion1-08 dot-x file.  Sorry, but it is doubtful 
> that we can go 
> > back to the
> > minorversion1-07 dot-x.
> > 
> > Given that we have already moved forward to -08, it would take some 
> > work to revert our implementation back to -07.
> > Unfortunately, the work to revert to -07 would just put us behind 
> > where we are right now and it is hard to justify that.
> >  Therefore, we would like to take -08 based implementations to 
> > Connectathon.
> > 
> > So, what do you think?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Lisa
> > 
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Lisa Week [mailto:Lisa.Week at Sun.COM]
> > >>Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:18 PM
> > >>To: Iyer, Rahul
> > >>Cc: William A. (Andy) Adamson; pnfs at linux-nfs.org
> > >>Subject: Re: [pnfs] pNFS testing at connectathon
> > >>
> > >>Hi Rahul,
> > >>
> > >>Thanks for the info.
> > >>
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>The only thing I wonder is - could we get more details 
> about what 
> > >>>>Sessions ops you are planning to have implemented at
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>Connectathon.  
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>More specifically, what ops do you mean when you say "the
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>sessions op
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>to replace the clientid we've added to several pNFS operations"?
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>>I'm doing the sessions bit for the client right now. The
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>ops I support
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>are create_clientid, create_session, sequence and (not yet,  but
> > >>>hopefully) destroy session. On the callback path
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>CB_SEQUENCE will be
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>all I support.
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>Would you be able to tell me which version of the dot-x
> > file that you
> > >>are using for your Sessions implementation (i.e.
> > >>which minor version draft does it correspond to)?
> > >>
> > >>I apologize if I have misunderstood something, but...
> > >>By the time Connectathon comes around do you intend to be on the
> > >>draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-08 dot-x file?  In other
> > words, can you
> > >>commit to supporting EXCHANGE_ID in lieu of CREATE_CLIENTID?
> > >>
> > >>Just for clarification, here is the dot-x file that we are working
> > >>toward: http://nfsv4-editor.org/draft-08/nfsv41.x
> > >>
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>>Also, are you planning to have both client and server
> > with pNFS and
> > >>>>Sessions functionality at Connectathon?
> > >>>>        
> > >>>>
> > >>>Yes. I will be integrating sessions and pNFS on the 
> Linux client.I 
> > >>>will be doing the same on the Netapp server too. However,
> > I have put
> > >>>in minimal stubs for the Linux server. One of Andy, Marc or
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>Benny mostly
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >>>will integrate this with pNFS.
> > >>>      
> > >>>
> > >>Okay.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>Lisa
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>    
> > >>
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> pNFS mailing list
> pNFS at linux-nfs.org
> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnfs
>