Re: [nfsv4] Some stuff on referrals/migration

brent@eng.sun.com

Message-ID: <40ABBB73.3000902@eng.sun.com>
From: Brent Callaghan <brent@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Some stuff on referrals/migration
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:27 -0700

Given that fs_locations has been in the spec for several years
now, and we're still trying to figure out how to implement it,
is it time to re-evaluate it ?

The NFS4ERR_MOVED error looks useful, but the work
required to extract fs_locations data seems very complex.

NFS users already use referrals via global paths in symbolic
links, e.g. "foo -> /net/otherserver/foo". They can do this
today with NFSv2 and NFSv3. Symlinks have the nice property
that they can be manipulated as filesystem objects.  It's
not clear how an fs_location attribute would be represented
on a server.

It seems that you could implement most of fs_locations in
a symbolic link, perhaps by embedding an NFS URL in the
link text.  Would it be better to explore this further?

	Brent

Noveck, Dave wrote:
 > At various testing events I've promised to write up my thoughts
 > on how to do referrals in v4, using the existing migration
 > facility.  In many cases, I indicated that I would do it in a
 > few weeks.  Well weeks have turned into (many) months and still
 > no write-up.  Given that I'm going to see many of you at the
 > bakeathon, I've decided to avoid further embarrassment by just
 > doing what I said I would, even though quite a bit late.
 >
 > Attached are two html files.  The first is a kind of cookbook
 > that explains how I think referrals should happen and what the
 > client and server should each do about points that are not so
 > clear in RFC3530.  The second is broadly consistent with the
 > first (I hope) but has a different focus.  It explains how the
 > spec should be modified to be clearer about migration
 > implementation issues including referral.  Since RFC3530 is not
 > modifiable any more, the discussion is in terms of the spec for
 > v4.1, even though there are no actual changes to the protocol
 > (at least if one adopts the "correct" interpretation of v4.0,
 > i.e. mine, on any unclear points).

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4