Subject: [nfsv4] pnfs summary from IETF 66

From: Garth Goodson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:03:53 -0700

Brief summary of discussion around open issues at IETF meeting.

* Issue #21: CB_SIZECHANGED

   - Discussion around whether we really need it for files and objects.
     Came to the conclusion it is only really necessary to close the hole
     between WRITE COMMITs and followed by READs.  LAYOUTCOMMIT and
     SETATTR should extend the files on the DSs so it isn't an issue
     there.  It also does not currently violate open-close consistency.

   - People are still confused about what it does in the block's case.
     David Black gave an example that helped some understand, others not.
     I think it needs to be made very clear how this is not an
     optimization but rather required for correctness.

* Issue #40: DS and MDS w/different security mechanisms
   - No disagreement on Mike Eisler's proposed text
   - Seems like Andy has comments brought up on mailing list, will
     close once discussion has completed.

* Issue #55: Attribute for when to write through MDS
   - Seemed to be general agreement that this sort of attribute would be
     useful
   - Garth will pick structure and repost proposal
   - Benny would like something more dynamic in nature (to reflect
     changing workloads); it was agreed a proposal on this could come
     after we have closed on current attribute

* Issue #57: Private layout range
   - Agreed that we will have a private layout range (high-bit set)
   - Agreed that we will use IANA registry for layout type definitions
   - Agreed that we will require a RFC for new layout types
   - Garth will write up this section and close the issue

* Issue #58: Layout return/recall flags
   - Some discussion over RETURN_ALL/RECALL_ALL flags
   - Wasn't clear if this is really necessary to get client and server
     back in sync
   - Will attach Marc Eshel's proposal of flushing client device ID cache
     to RETURN_ALL or FSID returns
   - Benny will update current proposal and repost for more discussion

* Issue #61: Lingering writes
   - No objections, will close using posted paragraph

* Issue #69: File-layout striping structure
   - No real disagreement
   - Issue was raised that these simple/complex device IDs might be
     useful in a generic sense (across all layouts); will revisit this
     once we have it defined for files
   - Garth will update proposal with specifics and repost

Other discussion:

- Need to have clear text that describes layout return meta op (it was 
suggested that we need pairing of recall/return layouts to facilitate 
correctness)

-Garth

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

---

From: Marc Eshel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:01:38 -0700

Is there a reason why we make the meeting so short? I don't mean that we 
should meet more than 2 hours in one meeting but maybe we should have more 
than one meeting like we did at Dallas. It worked nicely at Dallas, we had 
the first meeting identifying some issues, than we meat privately in 
groups and resolved few issues, and that meat again as a group and 
presented some resolved issues. The meeting today seemed rushed and we 
could use have used more time. If someone is making an effort and come 
half the way around the globe he/she should have more than 3 minutes for a 
presentation.
Marc.

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:48:08 -0500

> half the way around the globe he/she should have more than 3 minutes for a 

The meeting requests are driven by the number of agenda items and
overall perception of how much there is to cover face-to-face.

If there is a desire for two meetings during the week of IETF, that is
fine with me but the agenda requests must reflect the need for the time.

Spencer

---

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT)

> overall perception of how much there is to cover face-to-face.

I think the point is if a presenter was alloted 10 minutes, and
needs 10 minutes, he should get his 10 minutes, 
rather than being reduced to 3 minutes
because other presenters took his time.

> fine with me but the agenda requests must reflect the need for the

We had a lot of discussion of some agenda items and this
consumed more time than was apparently alloted. In the future, we 
should move to next agenda item at its appointed time even if
it clearly needs more time.

With two one hour meetings split over two
days, this will provide time for more controversial issues to be
discussed outside the formal meeting, and a report of the resolution
of the discussion brought to the the second meeting. Maybe we'll
need more than two hours total at the San Diego IETF. 

Actually 2 meetings over 3 days might be better because
it allows more opportunities for natural venues like
shared meals and refreshment breaks to discuss things, especially
for those WG attendees that actually want to go other WG meetings.

Also, I'm convinced meeting 3 times a year is insufficient.
The September bake-a-thon would be a good opportunity to
meet, especially if we can twist CITI's arm to host the WG meeting.

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:29:28 -0500

> because other presenters took his time.

Thanks for the clarification.

> it clearly needs more time.

That is fine.  We will set limits (as negotiated with the agenda requestor)
and when that time has been exceeded, we will move on.

> for those WG attendees that actually want to go other WG meetings.

Any other requests for number of meetings and or spacing?

Be aware that we can request the meeting slots and proposed spacing
but the secretariate may not be able to satisfy those requests
given all of the other conflicts they have to resolve.

> meet, especially if we can twist CITI's arm to host the WG meeting.

See upcoming email.

Spencer

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:40:36 -0400

> meet, especially if we can twist CITI's arm to host the WG meeting.

If NFSv4 decides to do this, please follow the IETF procedures for  
interim meetings on announcement, etc.

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories