Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 14:07:32 +0200 From: Ahmed Kamal <email.ahmedkamal@googlemail.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net Subject: Re: Linux NFSv4 clients are getting (bad sequence-id error!) Message-ID: <CANzjMX5eN1FsnHMf6KGZe_b3vwxxF=dy3fJUHxeGO4BXuNzfPA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1022558302.2863702.1435838360534.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> References: <CANzjMX45QaC8yZx2nHPAohJRvQjmUOHuhMQWP9nX%2BsrJs707Hg@mail.gmail.com> <684628776.2772174.1435793776748.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <CANzjMX7xKBvnzJhQhB_ZrUnyE2m_FJXXy4fm_RFnuZfBDyDm2A@mail.gmail.com> <55947C6E.5060409@delphij.net> <1491630362.2785531.1435799383802.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> <5594B008.10202@freebsd.org> <1022558302.2863702.1435838360534.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Appreciating the fruitful discussion! Can someone please explain to me, what would happen in the current situation (linux client doing this skip-by-1 thing, and freebsd not doing it) ? What is the effect of that? What do users see? Any chances of data loss? Also, I find it strange that netapp have acknowledged this is a bug on their side, which has been fixed since then! I also find it strange that I'm the first to hit this :) Is no one running nfs4 yet! On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > On 7/2/15 9:09 AM, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > I am going to post to nfsv4@ietf.org to see what they say. Please > > > let me know if Xin Li's patch resolves your problem, even though I > > > don't believe it is correct except for the UINT32_MAX case. Good > > > luck with it, rick > > and please keep us all in the loop as to what they say! > > > > the general N+2 bit sounds like bullshit to me.. its always N+1 in a > > number field that has a > > bit of slack at wrap time (probably due to some ambiguity in the > > original spec). > > > Actually, since N is the lock op already done, N + 1 is the next lock > operation in order. Since lock ops need to be strictly ordered, allowing > N + 2 (which means N + 2 would be done before N + 1) makes no sense. > > I think the author of the RFC meant that N + 2 or greater fails, but it > was poorly worded. > > I will pass along whatever I get from nfsv4@ietf.org. (There is an archive > of it somewhere, but I can't remember where.;-) > > rick > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANzjMX5eN1FsnHMf6KGZe_b3vwxxF=dy3fJUHxeGO4BXuNzfPA>