Re: pNFS rant (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] exofs: Kbuild, Headers and osdutils)

[Benny Halevy]

On Feb. 16, 2009, 13:05 +0200, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> No can do. exofs is meant to be a reference implementation of a pNFS-objects
>> file serving system. Have you read the spec of pNFS-objects layout? they define
>> RAID 0, 1, 5, and 6. In pNFS the MDS is suppose to be able to write the data
>> for its clients as NFS, so it needs to have all the infra structure and knowledge
>> of an Client pNFS-object layout drive.
> 
> Yes, I have studied pNFS!  I plan to add v4.1 and pNFS support to my NFS 
> server, once v4.0 support is working well.
> 
> 
> pNFS The Theory:   is wise and necessary:  permit clients to directly 
> connect to data storage, rather than copying through the metadata 
> server(s).  This is what every distributed filesystem is doing these 
> days -- direct to data server for bulk data read/write.
> 
> pNFS The Specification:   is an utter piece of shit.  I can only presume 
> some shady backroom deal in a smoke-filled room was the reason this saw 
> the light of day.
> 
> 
> In a sane world, NFS clients would speak... NFS.
> 
> In the crazy world of pNFS, NFS clients are now forced to speak NFS, 
> SCSI, RAID, and any number of proprietary layout types.  When will HTTP 
> be added to the list?  :)
> 
> But anything beyond the NFS protocol for talking client <-> data servers 
> is code bloat complexity madness for an NFS client that wishes to be 
> compatible with "most of the NFS 4.1 world".
> 
> An ideal NFS client for pNFS should be asked to do these two things, and 
> nothing more:
> 
> 1) send metadata transactions to one or more metadata servers, using 
> well-known NFS protocol
> 
> 2) send data to one or more data servers, using well-known NFS protocol 
> subset designed for storage (v4.1, section 13.6)
> 
> But no.
> 
> pNFS has forced a huge complexity on the NFS client, by permitting an 
> unbounded number of network protocols.  A "layout plugin" layer is 
> required.  SCSI and OSD support are REQUIRED for any reasonably 
> compatible setup going forward.
> 
> But even more than the technical complexity, this is the first time in 
> NFS history that NFS has required a protocol besides... NFS.
> 
> pNFS means that a useful. compatible NFS client must know all these 
> storage protocols, in addition to NFS.
> 
> Furthermore, enabling proprietary layout types means that it is easy for 
> a "compatible" v4.1 client to be denied parallel access to data 
> available to other "compatible" v4.1 clients:
> 
> 	Client A: Linux, fully open source
> 
> 	Client B: Linux, with closed source module for
> 		  layout type SuperWhizBang storage
> 
> 	Both Client A and Client B can claim to be NFS v4.1 and pNFS
> 	compatible,
> 	yet Client A must read data through the metadata
> 	server because it lacks the SuperWhizBang storage plugin.

At least, for SuperWhizBang to comply with NFSv4.1 requirements it
needs to follow the IETF process as an open protocol and address
important semantic details (as listed by nfsv4.1) on-top of the
wire data structures like security considerations and client fencing.

Being open source or not is somewhat orthogonal to that since
from the protocol specification one should be able to implement
a fully comply client and/or server.

> 
> pNFS means a never-ending arms race for the best storage layout, where 
> NFS clients are inevitably compatibly with a __random subset__ of total 
> available layout types.  pNFS will be a continuing train wreck of 
> fly-by-night storage companies, and their pet layout types & storage 
> protocols.
> 
> It is a support nightmare, an admin nightmare, a firewall nightmare, a 
> client implementor's nightmare, but a storage vendor's wet dream.

What you're basically saying is similar to rejecting the filesystem export
kABI since this will cause a never-ending arms race for the best file
system.  (a.k.a. "640KB of RAM and FAT file system is likely anything
that a sane user will ever need"... ;-)

I believe that competition is good.  Good for customers, for which the pNFS
protocol was designed for, and good for vendors as well.  The extra complexity
is there since one-size does not fit all.  Different storage technologies
fit certain applications better than others and exposing storage for
direct client access can convey these strengths all the way up to the host
running the application.

Besides, the pNFS specification was also driven by customers that use
proprietary clustered filesystems today, that use block or object-based
storage.  These customers want pNFS to be a standard to steam up
competition for several reasons, like:
- encourage open source implementations
- second source availability
- building best-of-breed systems by integrating
  parts from different vendors
- reuse of existing storage and networking infrastructure

Benny

> 
> NFS was never beautiful, but at least until v4.0 it was well known and 
> widely cross-compatible.  And only required one network protocol: NFS.
> 
> 	Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/