[Gluster-devel] RFC/Review: libgfapi object handle based extensions
amarts at gmail.com
Tue Oct 8 19:41:53 UTC 2013
> After giving this some more thought, I feel the cleanest way is to make
> inode_t and inode table graph aware. This way for a given GFID there will
> be one and only one inode_t at a given time no matter how many graphs are
> switched. It is also worth noting that relationship between two GFIDs does
> not change with a graph switch, so having a separate inode table with
> duplicate inodes and dentries has always been redundant in a way. The
> initial decision to have separate inode table per graph was done because
> inode table was bound to an xlator_t (which in turn was bound to a graph).
Initial design / implementation of this is @
http://review.gluster.org/6046Please review the way its handled...
> If we make inode_t and inode table multi-graph aware, the same inode_t
> would be valid on a new graph. We would need new code to keep track of the
> latest graph on which a given inode has been "initialized / discovered" in
> order to force a discover() on new graph if necessary (dentry relations
> would just continue to be valid), and after a new graph switch, to force
> cleanup of xlators from old graph.
This is not yet addressed with the above patch, and I would need some help
> Another reason why I prefer this new approach is, making inode_t graph
> independent makes old graph destruction completely "in our control",
> without having to depend on /force fuse to issue FORGET on inode_ts from
> the old graph. That entire problem gets eliminated as inode_ts would now be
> graph independent.
> (copying Raghavendra Bhat who is performing graph destruction work and
> Now after implementing the suggested method, I feel its much better for
overall dynamic graph/volume management. makes the code simple.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gluster-devel