How to control the order of different export options for different client formats?

DISCUSSION James Pearson 9 participants 24 messages May 17, 2011 – Jun 7, 2011 1 message not in the archive

Subsystems (2)

NFS client NFS server

lore

Share & tools

lore

James Pearson

author

2011-05-17 16:40 UTC #0 lore raw

I'm using CentOS 5.x (nfs-utils based on v1.0.9) - and have been using the following in /etc/exports:

/export *(rw,async) @backup(rw,no_root_squash,async)

which works fine - hosts in the backup NIS netgroup mount the file system with no_root_squash and other clients with root_squash

However, I now want to restrict the export to all clients in a single subnet - so I now have /etc/exports as:

/export 172.16.0.0/20(rw,async) @backup(rw,no_root_squash,async)

Unfortunately, hosts in the backup NIS netgroup (which are also in the 172.16.0.0/20 subnet) no longer mount with no_root_squash

It appears that the subnet export takes precedence over the netgroup export (it doesn't matter in what order the subnets/netgroups exports are listed in /etc/exports) - so the netgroup client options are ignored as a match has already been found in the subnet export.

Is there any way to control the order in which clients are checked for export options?

i.e. I would like netgroups to take precedence over subnets

Thanks

James Pearson

NeilBrown

2011-05-17 22:01 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 21 lines · On Tue, 17 May 2011 17:21:24 +0100 James Pearson <[email protected]>…

I'm using CentOS 5.x (nfs-utils based on v1.0.9) - and have been using the following in /etc/exports:
/export *(rw,async) @backup(rw,no_root_squash,async)
which works fine - hosts in the backup NIS netgroup mount the file system with no_root_squash and other clients with root_squash
However, I now want to restrict the export to all clients in a single subnet - so I now have /etc/exports as:
/export 172.16.0.0/20(rw,async) @backup(rw,no_root_squash,async)
Unfortunately, hosts in the backup NIS netgroup (which are also in the 172.16.0.0/20 subnet) no longer mount with no_root_squash
It appears that the subnet export takes precedence over the netgroup export (it doesn't matter in what order the subnets/netgroups exports are listed in /etc/exports) - so the netgroup client options are ignored as a match has already been found in the subnet export.

Quoted 4 lines

Is there any way to control the order in which clients are checked for export options?
i.e. I would like netgroups to take precedence over subnets

Unfortunately you cannot do that.

The place in the code where this is determined is towards the end of 'lookup_export' in utils/mountd/cache.c

Were I to try to 'fix' this I would probably define a new field in 'struct exportent' which holds a 'priority'.

Then allow a setting like "priority=4" in /etc/exports

Then change the code in lookup_export to choose the one with the higher priority, rather than the 'first' one.

NeilBrown

James Pearson

author

2011-05-18 10:19 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 9 lines · NeilBrown

Unfortunately you cannot do that.
The place in the code where this is determined is towards the end of 'lookup_export' in utils/mountd/cache.c
Were I to try to 'fix' this I would probably define a new field in 'struct exportent' which holds a 'priority'.

Quoted 6 lines

Then allow a setting like "priority=4" in /etc/exports
Then change the code in lookup_export to choose the one with the higher priority, rather than the 'first' one.
NeilBrown

I've hacked the source to make netgroups take precedence over subnets by
moving MCL_NETGROUP before MCL_SUBNETWORK in the enum in
support/include/exportfs.h - which works for me, as I only use netgroups, subnets and anonymous (in that priority order).

IMHO the priority of exports should really be as they appear on the line in /etc/exports, but I guess if that were to change, it would break existing /etc/exports that use the current priority ordering (either by design or accident!).

Having a priority option would be a very good idea - and may be in the meantime the exports man page should be updated with info about the current priority ordering?

Thanks

James Pearson

[email protected]

2011-05-18 11:54 UTC #3 lore raw

Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Hi,

I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.

Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.

							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB

With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec

With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec

Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....

J. Bruce Fields

2011-05-18 16:12 UTC #4 lore raw

Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which is confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.

Quoted 1 line · On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:

I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.

What are you using as the server, and what as the client?

--b.

Quoted 19 lines

Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[email protected]

2011-05-19 05:26 UTC #5 lore raw

RE: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Hi,

I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.

Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which is confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.

Quoted 1 line · On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:

I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.

What are you using as the server, and what as the client?

--b.

Quoted 19 lines

Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

J. Bruce Fields

2011-05-19 11:50 UTC #6 lore raw

Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530, [email protected] wrote:

Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.

So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?

--b.

Quoted 38 lines

Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which is confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
Quoted 1 line · On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 19 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[email protected]

2011-05-19 12:39 UTC #7 lore raw

RE: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

I have followed the way given on http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Configuring_pNFS/spnfsd .

-Taousif

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530, [email protected] wrote:

Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.

So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?

--b.

Quoted 38 lines

Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which is confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
Quoted 1 line · On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 19 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

J. Bruce Fields

2011-05-19 13:12 UTC #8 lore raw

Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:09:21PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:

I have followed the way given on http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Configuring_pNFS/spnfsd .

Oh. As noted there, spnfs is unmaintained.

And, in any case, we'd need many more details about your setup.

--b.

Quoted 57 lines

-Taousif
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.
So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?
--b.
Quoted 38 lines
Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which is confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
Quoted 1 line · On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 19 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[email protected]

2011-05-19 13:15 UTC #9 lore raw

RE: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Then what should I follow, and what details are needed....

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. Bruce Fields
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:09:21PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:

I have followed the way given on http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Configuring_pNFS/spnfsd .

Oh. As noted there, spnfs is unmaintained.

And, in any case, we'd need many more details about your setup.

--b.

Quoted 10 lines

-Taousif
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 47 lines

Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.
So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?
--b.
Quoted 38 lines
Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which is confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
Quoted 1 line · On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 19 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

J. Bruce Fields

2011-05-19 13:43 UTC #10 lore raw

Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:44:59PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:

Then what should I follow, and what details are needed....

There isn't really any supported server-side pNFS.

The closest is the GFS2-based code, for which you need to install Benny's latest tree, configure a shared block device, create a GFS2 filesystem on it, mount it across all DS's and the MDS, and export it from all of them--but I don't believe anyone has written step-by-step instructions for that.

--b.

Quoted 78 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. Bruce Fields
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:09:21PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
I have followed the way given on http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Configuring_pNFS/spnfsd .
Oh. As noted there, spnfs is unmaintained.
And, in any case, we'd need many more details about your setup.
--b.
Quoted 10 lines
-Taousif
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 47 lines
Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.
So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?
--b.
Quoted 38 lines
Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which is confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
Quoted 1 line · On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 19 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Taousif_Ansari-G5Y5guI6XLZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]

2011-05-19 14:09 UTC #11 lore raw

RE: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Can you please elaborate GFS2-setup a bit more...

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:14 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:44:59PM +0530…

Then what should I follow, and what details are needed....

There isn't really any supported server-side pNFS.

--b.

Quoted 78 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. Bruce Fields
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:09:21PM +0530…
I have followed the way given on http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Configuring_pNFS/spnfsd .
Oh. As noted there, spnfs is unmaintained.
And, in any case, we'd need many more details about your setup.
--b.
Quoted 10 lines
-Taousif
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 47 lines
Quoted 3 lines · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530…
Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.
So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?
--b.
Quoted 38 lines
Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which is confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
Quoted 1 line · On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530…
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 19 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630 70358 86223 70256 66047 66068 68489 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846 17039 18896 17009 17173 19206 17947 <== IO kB/sec
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198 38150 38084 38749 33663 34398 37313 37847 <== IO kB/sec
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586 4870 5227 4922 4214 5572 4658 <== IO kB/sec
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[email protected]

2011-05-19 14:37 UTC #12 lore raw

RE: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 7 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-nfs- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Can you please elaborate GFS2-setup a bit more...

I guess Bruce is saying the step-by-step procedure is not written up...

Create a Redhat cluster using the shared block storage(iSCSI in your case I guess). You would get documentation on creating a RH cluster in many places..

All the MDSs and the DSs need to be part of the cluster.

Format GFS2 on the shared iSCSI storage.

Mount the GFS2 formatted iSCSI storage on all the MDSs and DSs and export them via NFS. Use Benny's tree for NFS.

The GFS2 cluster backend is your glue to scale the MDSes and DSes.

Quoted 124 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:14 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:44:59PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
Then what should I follow, and what details are needed....
There isn't really any supported server-side pNFS.
The closest is the GFS2-based code, for which you need to install Benny's latest tree, configure a shared block device, create a GFS2 filesystem on it, mount it across all DS's and the MDS, and export it from all of them--but I don't believe anyone has written step-by-step instructions for that.
--b.
Quoted 3 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-nfs-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. Bruce Fields
Quoted 6 lines
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:09:21PM +0530, [email protected]
Quoted 1 line · wrote:
Quoted 1 line
I have followed the way given on http://wiki.linux-
nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Configuring_pNFS/spnfsd .
Quoted 18 lines
Oh. As noted there, spnfs is unmaintained.
And, in any case, we'd need many more details about your setup.
--b.
Quoted 11 lines
-Taousif
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar)
and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?
--b.
Quoted 9 lines
Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which
is
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530,
Quoted 1 line · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two
Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 5 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32
	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630
	70358	86223	70256	66047	66068	68489	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846
	17039	18896	17009	17173	19206	17947	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198
	38150	38084	38749	33663	34398	37313	37847	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586
	4870	5227	4922	4214	5572	4658	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue.... --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-nfs" in
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-
info.html
Quoted 2 lines
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs"
in
Quoted 2 lines
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[email protected]

2011-05-24 11:40 UTC #13 lore raw

RE: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Hi Bruce, Shyam

As mentioned here http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/PNFS_server_projects gfs2 is also having issues(crashes, performance), so instead of going for gfs2 can we debug spNFS itself to get high performance?

-Taousif

-----Original Message-----
From: Iyer, Shyam
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:08 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 5 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-nfs- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Can you please elaborate GFS2-setup a bit more...

I guess Bruce is saying the step-by-step procedure is not written up...

Create a Redhat cluster using the shared block storage(iSCSI in your case I guess). You would get documentation on creating a RH cluster in many places..

All the MDSs and the DSs need to be part of the cluster.

Format GFS2 on the shared iSCSI storage.

Mount the GFS2 formatted iSCSI storage on all the MDSs and DSs and export them via NFS. Use Benny's tree for NFS.

The GFS2 cluster backend is your glue to scale the MDSes and DSes.

Quoted 124 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:14 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:44:59PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
Then what should I follow, and what details are needed....
There isn't really any supported server-side pNFS.
The closest is the GFS2-based code, for which you need to install Benny's latest tree, configure a shared block device, create a GFS2 filesystem on it, mount it across all DS's and the MDS, and export it from all of them--but I don't believe anyone has written step-by-step instructions for that.
--b.
Quoted 3 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-nfs-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. Bruce Fields
Quoted 6 lines
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:09:21PM +0530, [email protected]
Quoted 1 line · wrote:
Quoted 1 line
I have followed the way given on http://wiki.linux-
nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Configuring_pNFS/spnfsd .
Quoted 18 lines
Oh. As noted there, spnfs is unmaintained.
And, in any case, we'd need many more details about your setup.
--b.
Quoted 11 lines
-Taousif
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar)
and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?
--b.
Quoted 9 lines
Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which
is
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530,
Quoted 1 line · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two
Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 5 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32
	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630
	70358	86223	70256	66047	66068	68489	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846
	17039	18896	17009	17173	19206	17947	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198
	38150	38084	38749	33663	34398	37313	37847	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586
	4870	5227	4922	4214	5572	4658	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue.... --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-nfs" in
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-
info.html
Quoted 2 lines
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs"
in
Quoted 2 lines
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Steven Whitehouse

2011-05-24 11:42 UTC #14 lore raw

[Cluster-devel] Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

/Hi,

Quoted 7 lines · On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 17:09 +0530, [email protected] wrote:

Hi Bruce, Shyam
As mentioned here http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/PNFS_server_projects gfs2 is also having issues(crashes, performance), so instead of going for gfs2 can we debug spNFS itself to get high performance?
-Taousif

As far as I'm aware that is historical information. If there are still problems with GFS2, then please report them so we can work on them,

Steve.

Quoted 156 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: Iyer, Shyam
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:08 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 5 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-nfs- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Can you please elaborate GFS2-setup a bit more...
I guess Bruce is saying the step-by-step procedure is not written up...
Create a Redhat cluster using the shared block storage(iSCSI in your case I guess). You would get documentation on creating a RH cluster in many places..
All the MDSs and the DSs need to be part of the cluster.
Format GFS2 on the shared iSCSI storage.
Mount the GFS2 formatted iSCSI storage on all the MDSs and DSs and export them via NFS. Use Benny's tree for NFS.
The GFS2 cluster backend is your glue to scale the MDSes and DSes.
Quoted 117 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:14 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:44:59PM +0530, [email protected] wrote:
Then what should I follow, and what details are needed....
There isn't really any supported server-side pNFS.
The closest is the GFS2-based code, for which you need to install Benny's latest tree, configure a shared block device, create a GFS2 filesystem on it, mount it across all DS's and the MDS, and export it from all of them--but I don't believe anyone has written step-by-step instructions for that.
--b.
Quoted 3 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-nfs-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. Bruce Fields
Quoted 6 lines
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:09:21PM +0530, [email protected]
Quoted 1 line · wrote:
Quoted 1 line
I have followed the way given on http://wiki.linux-
nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Configuring_pNFS/spnfsd .
Quoted 18 lines
Oh. As noted there, spnfs is unmaintained.
And, in any case, we'd need many more details about your setup.
--b.
Quoted 11 lines
-Taousif
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:56:44AM +0530,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Hi,
I am using on Server linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar)
and on client also linux-pnfs-2.6.38(linux-pnfs-ae7441f.tar) downloaded from http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=bhalevy/linux-pnfs.git;a=summary on Fedora 14.
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
So you're using GFS2 on the server? With what sort of storage?
--b.
Quoted 9 lines
Extremely sorry for causing confusing . -----Original Message-----
From: J. Bruce Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:43 PM
To: Ansari, Taousif - Dell Team
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance Issue with multiple dataserver
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
You sent this message as a reply to an unrelated message, which
is
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
confusing to those of us with threaded mail readers.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:24:45PM +0530,
Quoted 1 line · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
I have done pNFS setup with single Dataserver and Two
Dataserver and ran the IOzone tool on both, I found that the performance with multiple dataservers is less than the performance with single dataservers.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
What are you using as the server, and what as the client?
--b.
Quoted 5 lines
Here are some numbers, which were captured by the IOzone tool.
							  4	  8	 16	 32
	 64	 128	 256	 512	1024	<== Record Length in KB
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
With Single Dataserver:
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 66415 66359 63630
	70358	86223	70256	66047	66068	68489	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 18827 16920 18846
	17039	18896	17009	17173	19206	17947	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
With Two Dataservers :
Read operation for file size 1 MB- 36882 381198
	38150	38084	38749	33663	34398	37313	37847	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Write operation for file size 1 MB- 5461 4661 5586
	4870	5227	4922	4214	5572	4658	<== IO kB/sec
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Can somebody tell me What could be the issue.... --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-nfs" in
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-
info.html
Quoted 2 lines
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs"
Quoted 7 lines
in
Quoted 2 lines
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

J. Bruce Fields

2011-05-24 13:17 UTC #15 lore raw

[Cluster-devel] Performance Issue with multiple dataserver

Quoted 5 lines · Steven Whitehouse

/Hi,
Quoted 2 lines · Taousif_Ansari at DELLTEAM.com
Hi Bruce, Shyam

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 5 lines
As mentioned here http://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/PNFS_server_projects gfs2 is also having issues(crashes, performance), so instead of going for gfs2 can we debug spNFS itself to get high performance?
-Taousif
As far as I'm aware that is historical information. If there are still problems with GFS2, then please report them so we can work on them,

Well, they may be nfs problems rather than gfs2 problems.

In either case, neither pnfs/gfs2 nor spnfs is a particularly mature project; you will find bugs and performance problems in both.

I think a cluster-filesystem-based approach probably has the better chance of getting merged earlier, as it solves a number of thorny problems (such as how to do IO through the MDS) for you. But it all depends on what your goals are. Either will require significant development work to get into acceptable shape.

--b.

J. Bruce Fields

2011-05-18 16:20 UTC #16 lore raw

In reply to James Pearson

Quoted 17 lines · James Pearson

Quoted 9 lines · NeilBrown
Unfortunately you cannot do that.
The place in the code where this is determined is towards the end of 'lookup_export' in utils/mountd/cache.c
Were I to try to 'fix' this I would probably define a new field in 'struct exportent' which holds a 'priority'.
Quoted 6 lines
Then allow a setting like "priority=4" in /etc/exports
Then change the code in lookup_export to choose the one with the higher priority, rather than the 'first' one.
NeilBrown

Quoted 7 lines

I've hacked the source to make netgroups take precedence over subnets by moving MCL_NETGROUP before MCL_SUBNETWORK in the enum in support/include/exportfs.h - which works for me, as I only use netgroups, subnets and anonymous (in that priority order).
IMHO the priority of exports should really be as they appear on the line in /etc/exports,

Sounds reasonable to me.

Quoted 3 lines

but I guess if that were to change, it would
break existing /etc/exports that use the current priority ordering (either by design or accident!).

Maybe some new /etc/exports syntax could allow the administrator to opt into a new priority ordering.

Quoted 3 lines

Having a priority option would be a very good idea - and may be in the meantime the exports man page should be updated with info about the current priority ordering?

Sounds good. Could you send in a patch?

--b.

James Pearson

author

2011-05-20 13:38 UTC #17 lore raw

Quoted 6 lines · J. Bruce Fields

Quoted 3 lines
Having a priority option would be a very good idea - and may be in the meantime the exports man page should be updated with info about the current priority ordering?
Sounds good. Could you send in a patch?

Here's an attempt - based on the info from Max Matveev <[email protected]> earlier in this thread

James Pearson

exports.man 2011-05-20 14:29:45.555314605 +0100 renamed from exports.man.dist 2010-09-28 13:24:16.000000000 +0100 +5 -0

@@ -92,6 +92,11 @@
 '''.B \-\-public\-root
 '''option. Multiple specifications of a public root will be ignored.
 .PP
+.SS Matched Client Priories
+The order in which the different \fIMachine Name Formats\fR are matched
+against clients is in the priority order: \fIhostname, IP address or networks,
+wildcards, netgroup and anonymous\fR. Entries at the same level are matched
+in the same order in which they appear in \fI/etc/exports\fR.
 .SS RPCSEC_GSS security
 You may use the special strings "gss/krb5", "gss/krb5i", or "gss/krb5p"
 to restrict access to clients using rpcsec_gss security.  However, this

J. Bruce Fields

2011-05-20 16:41 UTC #18 lore raw

Quoted 17 lines · James Pearson

Quoted 6 lines · J. Bruce Fields
Quoted 3 lines
Having a priority option would be a very good idea - and may be in the meantime the exports man page should be updated with info about the current priority ordering?
Sounds good. Could you send in a patch?
Here's an attempt - based on the info from Max Matveev <[email protected]> earlier in this thread
James Pearson

exports.man 2011-05-20 14:29:45.555314605 +0100 line 95

Quoted 4 lines

exports.man 2011-05-20 14:29:45.555314605 +0100 renamed from exports.man.dist 2010-09-28 13:24:16.000000000 +0100 +1 -0
@@ -92,6 +92,11 @@
 '''.B \-\-public\-root
 '''option. Multiple specifications of a public root will be ignored.
 .PP
+.SS Matched Client Priories

Priorities?

But could we just combine this with the previous section--and make sure the different possibilities are listed there in the correct priority order to start off with.

That'd also mean adding a new subsection for the "anonymous" case.

--b.

Quoted 11 lines

exports.man 2011-05-20 14:29:45.555314605 +0100 renamed from exports.man.dist 2010-09-28 13:24:16.000000000 +0100 +4 -0
+The order in which the different \fIMachine Name Formats\fR are matched
+against clients is in the priority order: \fIhostname, IP address
 or networks,
+wildcards, netgroup and anonymous\fR. Entries at the same level are matched
+in the same order in which they appear in \fI/etc/exports\fR.
 .SS RPCSEC_GSS security
 You may use the special strings "gss/krb5", "gss/krb5i", or "gss/krb5p"
to restrict access to clients using rpcsec_gss security. However, this

James Pearson

author

2011-06-02 13:38 UTC #19 lore raw

Quoted 6 lines · J. Bruce Fields

But could we just combine this with the previous section--and make sure the different possibilities are listed there in the correct priority order to start off with.
That'd also mean adding a new subsection for the "anonymous" case.

OK - how about the attached patch?

James Pearson

exports.man renamed from exports.man.dist +25 ~~-13~~

@@ -48,19 +48,6 @@
 This is the most common format. You may specify a host either by an
 abbreviated name recognized be the resolver, the fully qualified domain
 name, or an IP address.
-.IP "netgroups
-NIS netgroups may be given as
-.IR @group .
-Only the host part of each
-netgroup members is consider in checking for membership.  Empty host
-parts or those containing a single dash (\-) are ignored.
-.IP "wildcards
-Machine names may contain the wildcard characters \fI*\fR and \fI?\fR.
-This can be used to make the \fIexports\fR file more compact; for instance,
-\fI*.cs.foo.edu\fR matches all hosts in the domain
-\fIcs.foo.edu\fR.  As these characters also match the dots in a domain
-name, the given pattern will also match all hosts within any subdomain
-of \fIcs.foo.edu\fR.
 .IP "IP networks
 You can also export directories to all hosts on an IP (sub-) network
 simultaneously. This is done by specifying an IP address and netmask pair

@@ -72,6 +59,25 @@
 to the network base IPv4 address results in identical subnetworks with 10 bits of
 host. Wildcard characters generally do not work on IP addresses, though they
 may work by accident when reverse DNS lookups fail.
+.IP "wildcards
+Machine names may contain the wildcard characters \fI*\fR and \fI?\fR.
+This can be used to make the \fIexports\fR file more compact; for instance,
+\fI*.cs.foo.edu\fR matches all hosts in the domain
+\fIcs.foo.edu\fR.  As these characters also match the dots in a domain
+name, the given pattern will also match all hosts within any subdomain
+of \fIcs.foo.edu\fR.
+.IP "netgroups
+NIS netgroups may be given as
+.IR @group .
+Only the host part of each
+netgroup members is consider in checking for membership.  Empty host
+parts or those containing a single dash (\-) are ignored.
+.IP "anonymous
+This is specified by a single
+.I *
+character (not to be confused with the
+.I wildcard
+entry above) and will match all clients.
 '''.TP
 '''.B =public
 '''This is a special ``hostname'' that identifies the given directory name

@@ -92,6 +98,12 @@
 '''.B \-\-public\-root
 '''option. Multiple specifications of a public root will be ignored.
 .PP
+If a client matches more than one of the specifications above, then
+the first match from the above list order takes precedence - regardless of
+the order they appear on the export line. However, if a client matches
+more than one of the same type of specification (e.g. two netgroups),
+then the first match from the order they appear on the export line takes
+precedence.
 .SS RPCSEC_GSS security
 You may use the special strings "gss/krb5", "gss/krb5i", or "gss/krb5p"
 to restrict access to clients using rpcsec_gss security.  However, this

J. Bruce Fields

2011-06-04 18:20 UTC #20 lore raw

Quoted 9 lines · James Pearson

Quoted 6 lines · J. Bruce Fields
But could we just combine this with the previous section--and make sure the different possibilities are listed there in the correct priority order to start off with.
That'd also mean adding a new subsection for the "anonymous" case.
OK - how about the attached patch?

Looks good to me, thanks.

My one quibble is with the statement that "single host" "is the most common format". (I don't think we know that.)

Fix that, and just resend with a brief changelog comment and a

Signed-off-by James Pearson <etc...>

and steved should get around to applying it eventually....

--b.

Quoted 64 lines

James Pearson

exports.man renamed from exports.man.dist +25 ~~-13~~

@@ -48,19 +48,6 @@
 This is the most common format. You may specify a host either by an
 abbreviated name recognized be the resolver, the fully qualified domain
 name, or an IP address.
-.IP "netgroups
-NIS netgroups may be given as
-.IR @group .
-Only the host part of each
-netgroup members is consider in checking for membership.  Empty host
-parts or those containing a single dash (\-) are ignored.
-.IP "wildcards
-Machine names may contain the wildcard characters \fI*\fR and \fI?\fR.
-This can be used to make the \fIexports\fR file more compact; for instance,
-\fI*.cs.foo.edu\fR matches all hosts in the domain
-\fIcs.foo.edu\fR.  As these characters also match the dots in a domain
-name, the given pattern will also match all hosts within any subdomain
-of \fIcs.foo.edu\fR.
 .IP "IP networks
 You can also export directories to all hosts on an IP (sub-) network
 simultaneously. This is done by specifying an IP address and netmask pair

@@ -72,6 +59,25 @@
 to the network base IPv4 address results in identical subnetworks with 10 bits of
 host. Wildcard characters generally do not work on IP addresses, though they
 may work by accident when reverse DNS lookups fail.
+.IP "wildcards
+Machine names may contain the wildcard characters \fI*\fR and \fI?\fR.
+This can be used to make the \fIexports\fR file more compact; for instance,
+\fI*.cs.foo.edu\fR matches all hosts in the domain
+\fIcs.foo.edu\fR.  As these characters also match the dots in a domain
+name, the given pattern will also match all hosts within any subdomain
+of \fIcs.foo.edu\fR.
+.IP "netgroups
+NIS netgroups may be given as
+.IR @group .
+Only the host part of each
+netgroup members is consider in checking for membership.  Empty host
+parts or those containing a single dash (\-) are ignored.
+.IP "anonymous
+This is specified by a single
+.I *
+character (not to be confused with the
+.I wildcard
+entry above) and will match all clients.
 '''.TP
 '''.B =public
 '''This is a special ``hostname'' that identifies the given directory name

@@ -92,6 +98,12 @@
 '''.B \-\-public\-root
 '''option. Multiple specifications of a public root will be ignored.
 .PP
+If a client matches more than one of the specifications above, then
+the first match from the above list order takes precedence - regardless of
+the order they appear on the export line. However, if a client matches
+more than one of the same type of specification (e.g. two netgroups),
+then the first match from the order they appear on the export line takes
+precedence.
 .SS RPCSEC_GSS security
 You may use the special strings "gss/krb5", "gss/krb5i", or "gss/krb5p"
 to restrict access to clients using rpcsec_gss security.  However, this

James Pearson

author

2011-06-06 12:14 UTC #21 lore raw

Quoted 10 lines · J. Bruce Fields

Looks good to me, thanks.
My one quibble is with the statement that "single host" "is the most common format". (I don't think we know that.)
Fix that, and just resend with a brief changelog comment and a
Signed-off-by James Pearson <etc...>
and steved should get around to applying it eventually....

The "This is the most common format" statement is in the existing exports man page - i.e. nothing to do with my patch ...

However, I'll remove that statement as well and submit the patch

James Pearson

A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 4DE79236.1080808-5Ol4pYTxKWu0ML75eksnrtBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org

Steve Dickson

2011-06-07 20:33 UTC #23 lore raw

Quoted 11 lines · James Pearson

Quoted 6 lines · J. Bruce Fields
But could we just combine this with the previous section--and make sure the different possibilities are listed there in the correct priority order to start off with.
That'd also mean adding a new subsection for the "anonymous" case.
OK - how about the attached patch?
James Pearson

Committed....

steved.

Max Matveev

2011-05-18 00:46 UTC #24 lore raw

In reply to James Pearson

On Tue, 17 May 2011 17:21:24 +0100, James Pearson wrote:

james-p> Is there any way to control the order in which clients are james-p> checked for export options?

james-p> i.e. I would like netgroups to take precedence over subnets

You're out of luck here - the entires are checked in the following
order: FQDN, subnet, wildcard, netgroup, anonymous and finally gss. Here 'wildcard' means anything except the bare '*' which is considered anonymous. Any entries on the same "level", i.e. two netgroups or two FQDNs are checked in the same order in which they appear in /etc/exports.

max