On 9/23/15 4:18 PM, Malahal Naineni wrote: > 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, the two of you simply confound my parochial view of how export is used. And in any case, should be done exactly like quitting or HUPping Ganesha.
I'm from the old school where a very few exports are used by hundreds or thousands of clients. For example, exporting /home. That's where I've been coming from all along (say pNFS). > Wondering if we can avoid using exportid in the file handle! > The idea that exports would be dynamically created, removed, recreated -- seems to me more like file handles! Maybe in the future we can further re-design the handle to have only a version and flags, and the unified export + file handle could be any length. People could encode them, use TLV, ASN.1, etc.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel
