Internet DRAFT - draft-haynes-nfsv4-layoutwcc
draft-haynes-nfsv4-layoutwcc
Network File System Version 4 T. Haynes
Internet-Draft T. Myklebust
Updates: 8435 (if approved) Hammerspace
Intended status: Standards Track 20 February 2023
Expires: 24 August 2023
Add LAYOUT_WCC to NFSv4.2
draft-haynes-nfsv4-layoutwcc-01
Abstract
The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) Flexible File Layout allows
for a file's metadata (MDS) and data (DS) to be on different servers.
It does not provide a mechanism for the data server to update the
metadata server of changes to the data part of the file. The client
has knowledge of such updates, but lacks the ability to update the
metadata server. This document presents a refinement to RFC8434 to
allow the client to update the metadata server to changes on the data
server.
Note
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this draft takes place on the NFSv4 working group
mailing list (nfsv4@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/. Working Group
information can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/
about/.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 August 2023.
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LAYOUT_WCC February 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Operation 77: LAYOUT_WCC - Layout Weak Cache Consistency . . 3
2.4. Allowed Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Extension of Existing Implementations . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Flex Files Layout Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Extraction of XDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Code Components Licensing Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
In the Network File System version4 (NFSv4) with a Parallel NFS
(pNFS) Flexible File Layout ([RFC8435]) server, there is no mechanism
for the data servers to update the metadata servers for when the data
portion of the file is modified. The metadata server needs this
knowledge to correspondingly update the metadata portion of the file.
If the client is using NFSv3 as the protocol with the data server, it
can leverage weak cache consistency (WCC) to update the metadata
server of the attribute changes. In this document, we introduce a
new operation called LAYOUT_WCC which allows the client to
periodically report the attributes of the data files to the metadata
server.
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LAYOUT_WCC February 2023
Using the process detailed in [RFC8178], the revisions in this
document become an extension of NFSv4.2 [RFC7862]. They are built on
top of the external data representation (XDR) [RFC4506] generated
from [RFC7863].
1.1. Definitions
(file) data: that part of the file system object that contains the
data to be read or written. It is the contents of the object
rather than the attributes of the object.
data server (DS): a pNFS server that provides the file's data when
the file system object is accessed over a file-based protocol.
(file) metadata: the part of the file system object that contains
various descriptive data relevant to the file object, as opposed
to the file data itself. This could include the time of last
modification, access time, EOF position, etc.
metadata server (MDS): the pNFS server that provides metadata
information for a file system object.
weak cache consistency (WCC): In NFSv3, WCC allows the client to
check for file attribute changes before and after an operation.
(See Section 2.6 of [RFC1813])
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Operation 77: LAYOUT_WCC - Layout Weak Cache Consistency
2.1. ARGUMENT
<CODE BEGINS>
/// struct LAYOUT_WCC4args {
/// stateid4 lowa_stateid;
/// layouttype4 lowa_type;
/// opaque lowa_body<>;
/// };
<CODE ENDS>
2.2. RESULT
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LAYOUT_WCC February 2023
<CODE BEGINS>
/// struct LAYOUT_WCC4res {
/// nfsstat4 lowr_status;
/// };
<CODE ENDS>
2.3. DESCRIPTION
When using pNFS (See Section 12 of [RFC8881]), the client is most
likely to be performing file operations to the storage device and not
the metadata server. With a NFSv3 data server in the flexible files
layout type (in [RFC8435]) there is no control protocol ([RFC8434])
between the metadata server and the storage device. In order to
update the metadata state of the file, the metadata server will need
to track the metadata state of the data file - once the layout is
issued, it is not able to see the NFSv3 file operations from the
client to the storage device. Thus the metadata server will be
required to query the storage device for the data file attributes.
For example, the metadata server would issue a NFSv3 GETATTR to the
storage device. These queries are most likely triggered in response
to a NFSv4 GETATTR to the metadata server. Not only are these NFSv3
GETATTRs to the storage device individually expensive, the storage
device can become inundated by a storm of such requests. NFSv3
solved a similar issue by having the READ and WRITE operations employ
a post-operation attribute to report the weak cache consistency (WCC)
data (See Section 2.6 of [RFC1813]).
Each NFSv3 operation corresponds to one round trip between the client
and server. So a WRITE followed by a GETATTR would require two round
trips. In that scenario, the attribute information retrieved is
considered to be strict server-client consistency. For NFSv4, the
WRITE and GETATTR can be issued together inside a compound, which
only requires one round trip between the client and server. And this
is also considered to be a strict server-client consistency. In
essence, the NFSv4 READ and WRITE operations drop the post-operation
attributes, allowing the client to decide if it needs that
information.
With the flexible files layout type, the client can leverage the
NFSv3 WCC to service the proxying of times (See Section 4 of
[delstid]). But the granularity of this data is limited. With
client side mirroring (See Section 8 of [RFC8435]), the client has to
aggregate the N mirrored files in order to send one piece of
information instead of N pieces of information. Also, the client is
limited to sending that information only when it returns the
delegation.
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LAYOUT_WCC February 2023
The current filehandle and the lowa_stateid identifies the particular
layout for the LAYOUT_WCC operation. The lowa_type indicates how to
unpack the layout type specific payload inside the lowa_body field.
The lowa_type is defined to be a value from the IANA registry for
"pNFS Layout Types Registry".
The lowa_body will contain the data file attributes. The client will
be responsible for mapping the NFSv3 post-operation attributes to
those in a fattr4. Just as the post-operation attributes may be
ignored by the client, the server may ignore the attributes inside
the LAYOUT_WCC. But the server can also use those attributes to
avoid querying the storage device for the data file attributes. Note
that as these attributes are optional and there is nothing the client
can do if the server ignores one, there is no need to return a
bitmap4 of which attributes were accepted in the result of the
LAYOUT_WCC.
2.4. Allowed Errors
The LAYOUT_WCC operation can raise the errors in Table 1. When an
error is encountered, the metadata server can decide to ignore the
entire operation or depending on the layout type specific payload, it
could decide to apply a portion of the payload.
Valid Error Returns for LAYOUT_WCC
+===================================================================+
| Errors |
+===================================================================+
| NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED, NFS4ERR_BADXDR, NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, |
| NFS4ERR_DEADSESSION, NFS4ERR_DELAY, NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED, |
| NFS4ERR_EXPIRED, NFS4ERR_FHEXPIRED, NFS4ERR_GRACE, |
| NFS4ERR_INVAL, NFS4ERR_ISDIR, NFS4ERR_MOVED, |
| NFS4ERR_NOFILEHANDLE, NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP, NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE, |
| NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID, NFS4ERR_OP_NOT_IN_SESSION, |
| NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG, NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG_TO_CACHE, |
| NFS4ERR_REQ_TOO_BIG, NFS4ERR_RETRY_UNCACHED_REP, |
| NFS4ERR_SERVERFAULT, NFS4ERR_STALE, NFS4ERR_TOO_MANY_OPS, |
| NFS4ERR_UNKNOWN_LAYOUTTYPE, NFS4ERR_WRONG_CRED, |
| NFS4ERR_WRONG_TYPE |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Table 1
2.5. Extension of Existing Implementations
The new LAYOUT_WCC operation is OPTIONAL for both NFSv4.2 ([RFC7863])
and the flexible files layout type ([RFC8435]).
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LAYOUT_WCC February 2023
2.6. Flex Files Layout Type
<CODE BEGINS>
/// struct ff_data_server_wcc4 {
/// deviceid4 ffdsw_deviceid;
/// stateid4 ffdsw_stateid;
/// nfs_fh4 ffdsw_fh_vers<>;
/// fattr4 ffdsw_attributes;
/// };
///
/// struct ff_mirror_wcc4 {
/// ff_data_server_wcc4 ffmw_data_servers<>;
/// };
///
/// struct ff_layout_wcc4 {
/// ff_mirror_wcc4 fflw_mirrors<>;
/// };
<CODE ENDS>
The flex file layout type specific results MUST correspond to the
ff_layout4 data structure as defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC8435].
There MUST be a one-to-one correspondence between:
* ff_data_server4 -> ff_data_server_wcc4
* ff_mirror4 -> ff_mirror_wcc4
* ff_layout4 -> ff_layout_wcc4
Each ff_layout4 has an array of ff_mirror4, which have an array of
ff_data_server4. Based on the current filehandle and the
lowa_stateid, the server can match the reported attributes.
But the positional correspondence between the elements is not
sufficient to determine the attributes to update. Consider the case
where a layout had three mirrors and two of them had updated
attributes, but the third did not. A client could decide to present
all three mirrors, with one mirror having an attribute mask with no
attributes present. Or it could decide to present only the two
mirrors which had been changed.
In either case, the combination of ffdsw_deviceid, ffdsw_stateid, and
ffdsw_fh_vers will uniquely identify the attributes to be updated.
All three arguments are required. A layout might have multiple data
files on the same storage device, in which case the ffdsw_deviceid
and ffdsw_stateid would match, but the ffdsw_fh_vers would not.
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LAYOUT_WCC February 2023
The ffdsw_attributes are processed similar to the obj_attributes in
the SETATTR arguments (See Section 18.34 of [RFC8881]).
3. Extraction of XDR
This document contains the external data representation (XDR)
[RFC4506] description of the new open flags for delegating the file
to the client. The XDR description is embedded in this document in a
way that makes it simple for the reader to extract into a ready-to-
compile form. The reader can feed this document into the following
shell script to produce the machine readable XDR description of the
new flags:
<CODE BEGINS>
#!/bin/sh
grep '^ *///' $* | sed 's?^ */// ??' | sed 's?^ *///$??'
<CODE ENDS>
That is, if the above script is stored in a file called "extract.sh",
and this document is in a file called "spec.txt", then the reader can
do:
<CODE BEGINS>
sh extract.sh < spec.txt > layout_wcc.x
<CODE ENDS>
The effect of the script is to remove leading white space from each
line, plus a sentinel sequence of "///". XDR descriptions with the
sentinel sequence are embedded throughout the document.
Note that the XDR code contained in this document depends on types
from the NFSv4.2 nfs4_prot.x file (generated from [RFC7863]). This
includes both nfs types that end with a 4, such as offset4, length4,
etc., as well as more generic types such as uint32_t and uint64_t.
While the XDR can be appended to that from [RFC7863], the various
code snippets belong in their respective areas of the that XDR.
3.1. Code Components Licensing Notice
Both the XDR description and the scripts used for extracting the XDR
description are Code Components as described in Section 4 of "Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents" [LEGAL]. These Code
Components are licensed according to the terms of that document.
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LAYOUT_WCC February 2023
4. Security Considerations
There are no new security considerations beyond those in [RFC7862].
5. IANA Considerations
IANA should use the current document (RFC-TBD) as the reference for
the new entries.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[delstid] Haynes, T. and T. Myklebust, "Extending the Opening of
Files in NFSv4.2", draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-02.xml (Work
In Progress), February 2023.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed., "XDR: External Data Representation
Standard", STD 67, RFC 4506, DOI 10.17487/RFC4506, May
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4506>.
[RFC7862] Haynes, T., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
Version 2 Protocol", RFC 7862, DOI 10.17487/RFC7862,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7862>.
[RFC7863] Haynes, T., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
Version 2 External Data Representation Standard (XDR)
Description", RFC 7863, DOI 10.17487/RFC7863, November
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7863>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8178] Noveck, D., "Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor
Versions", RFC 8178, DOI 10.17487/RFC8178, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8178>.
[RFC8434] Haynes, T., "Requirements for Parallel NFS (pNFS) Layout
Types", RFC 8434, DOI 10.17487/RFC8434, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8434>.
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LAYOUT_WCC February 2023
[RFC8435] Halevy, B. and T. Haynes, "Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible
File Layout", RFC 8435, DOI 10.17487/RFC8435, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8435>.
[RFC8881] Noveck, D., Ed. and C. Lever, "Network File System (NFS)
Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 8881,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8881, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8881>.
6.2. Informative References
[LEGAL] IETF Trust, "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents",
November 2008, <http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-
License-Policy.pdf>.
[RFC1813] Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS
Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1813, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1813>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Trond Myklebust and David Flynn all worked on the prototype at
Hammerspace.
Dave Noveck and Tigran Mkrtchyan provided reviews of the document.
Authors' Addresses
Thomas Haynes
Hammerspace
Email: loghyr@hammerspace.com
Trond Myklebust
Hammerspace
Email: trondmy@hammerspace.com
Haynes & Myklebust Expires 24 August 2023 [Page 9]
