Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD
From: Daniel Phillips <hidden>
Date: 2006-08-17 04:48:57
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0700, Daniel Phillips (phillips@google.com) wrote:quoted
Indeed. The rest of the corner cases like netfilter, layered protocol and so on need to be handled, however they do not need to be handled right now in order to make remote storage on a lan work properly. The sane thing for the immediate future is to flag each socket as safe for remote block IO or not, then gradually widen the scope of what is safe. We need to set up an opt in strategy for network block IO that views such network subsystems as ipfilter as not safe by default, until somebody puts in the work to make them safe.Just for clarification - it will be completely impossible to login using openssh or some other priveledge separation protocol to the machine due to the nature of unix sockets. So you will be unable to manage your storage system just because it is in OOM - it is not what is expected from reliable system.
The system is not OOM, it is in reclaim, a transient condition that will be resolved in normal course by IO progress. However you raise an excellent point: if there is any remote management that we absolutely require to be available while remote IO is interrupted - manual failover for example - then we must supply a means of carrying out such remote administration, that is guaranteed not to deadlock on a normal mode memory request. This ends up as a new network stack feature I think, and probably a theoretical one for the time being since we don't actually know of any such mandatory login that must be carried out while remote disk IO is suspended.
quoted
But really, if you expect to run reliable block IO to Zanzibar over an ssh tunnel through a firewall, then you might also consider taking up bungie jumping with the cord tied to your neck.Just pure openssh for control connection (admin should be able to login).
And the admin will be able to, but in the cluster stack itself we don't bless such stupidity as emailing an admin to ask for a login in order to break a tie over which node should take charge of DLM recovery. Regards, Da niel