[Gluster-devel] Lease-lock Design notes
icooper at redhat.com
Fri Jul 17 22:39:30 UTC 2015
1. Yes, it is intentional. The internals of gluster should be able to lease-lks. We discussed using them in the read ahead translator and the write behind translator.
2. This has been discussed, and proposed, but there is actually a need for a lease fop also, because clients can request the "renewal" or "reinstatement" of a lease. (Actually for Samba having it all be one call and atomic is very interesting.)
3. This I can't answer... I haven't been in the most recent discussions. But the intent of this work, when I started, was to be useful to the whole of Gluster, not just Samba or Ganesha.
----- Original Message -----
> I have some questions or gaps in understanding the current lease design,
> request some clarification on the same.
> 1) Is there a notion of a *gluster* client holding a lease on a file/dir?
> - As per your Barcelona gluster summit presentation the client side
> caching needs this notion
> - DHT/EC/AFR can leverage such a lease to prevent eager or any form of
> locking when attempting to hold consistency of data being operated on
> - Please note that this requires not each xlator requesting and
> holding the lease, but a *gluster* client holding the lease, assuming
> that one can do local in memory locking to prevent different
> fd/connection/applications performing operations on the same file
> against the *same* gluster client and not have to coordinate this with
> the brick
> I see some references to this in the design but wanted to understand if
> the thought is there.
> IOW, if an NFS client requests a lease, Ganesha requests the lease from
> Gluster, in which case the gfapi client that requested the lease first
> gets the lease, and then re-leases it to Ganesha, now Ganesha is free to
> lease it to any client on its behalf and recall leases etc. as the case
> may be and the gluster client does not care. When another gluster client
> (due to Ganesha or otherwise (say self heal or rebalance)) attempts to
> get a lease, that is when the lease is broken all across.
> Is my understanding right, is the design along these lines?
> 2) Why is the lease not piggy backed with the open? Why 2 network FOPs
> instead of 1 in this case? How can we compound this lease with other
> requests? Or do you have thoughts around the same?
> Isn't NFS and SMB requesting leases with its open calls
> 3) If there were discussions around some designs that were rejected,
> could you also update the document with the same, so the one can
> understand the motivation behind the current manner of implementing leases.
> On 04/16/2015 07:37 AM, Soumya Koduri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Below link contains the lease-lock design notes (as per the latest
> > discussion we had). Thanks to everyone involved (CC'ed).
> > http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Features/Upcall-infrastructure#delegations.2Flease-locks
> > Kindly go through the same and provide us your inputs.
> > Thanks,
> > Soumya
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gluster-devel mailing list
> > Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
More information about the Gluster-devel