> From: Marc Eshel [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:20 PM
> To: Frank Filz <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; 'NFS Ganesha Developers'
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] Export_id larger than 16 bits
> 
> if we want to continue to support vmware we are limited to 56 bytes file
> handle for NFSv3.

Oh, right. I keep forgetting that... Which IS why we are so tight on the
size of v3 handles...

Without that limitation, we would easily have room for 32 bit exportid...

Frank


> From:        "Frank Filz" <[email protected]>
> To:        [email protected]
> Cc:        "'NFS Ganesha Developers'"
> <[email protected]>
> Date:        09/23/2015 01:45 PM
> Subject:        Re: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] Export_id larger than 16 bits
> ________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> > Frank Filz [[email protected]] wrote:
> > > Exports don't necessarily correspond to connections.
> > >
> > > The Linux client (and I'm guessing most others) will use one
> > > connection
> to
> > the server (or a few if it does some trunking) for all exports it
> > mounts
> from
> > that server. Now true, if the exports are intended for different
> > clients
> there
> > might be some issues, however, a clustered system would distribute the
> > client connections among multiple hosts while having the convenience
> > of managing all the exports as if there was a single server.
> > >
> > > Frank
> >
> > There are also people who create exports, remove them, and recreate
> > exports. They will not have anything close to 64K exports at the same
> time,
> > but they will pass that mark after few weeks/months as every export
> > create needs an unused exportid.
> 
> Well, exportid could be managed to keep within 16 bits in such a scenario.
> 
> Your GPFS handles are one of the larger handles (if not the largest,
though
> BTRFS has a 40 byte kernel handle).
> 
> > Wondering if we can avoid using exportid in the file handle!
> 
> Only if we were strict and had only one export per FSID, but then a lot of
> front end logic would have to change, and handles would not be backward
> compatible.
> 
> If folks with the largest handles got creative, we COULD probably squeeze
> out an extra 2 bytes.
> 
> There's also an intermediate option, a 24 bit exportid since the header is
5
> bytes.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor Your Dynamic Infrastructure at Any Scale With Datadog!
Get real-time metrics from all of your servers, apps and tools
in one place.
SourceForge users - Click here to start your Free Trial of Datadog now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=241902991&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel

Reply via email to