NFSv4 D. Noveck, Ed.
Internet-Draft Dell
Intended status: Informational P. Shivam
Expires: September 3, 2015 C. Lever
B. Baker
ORACLE
March 2, 2015
NFSv4 migration: Implementation experience and spec issues to resolve
draft-ietf-nfsv4-migration-issues-07
Abstract
The migration feature of NFSv4 provides for moving responsibility for
a single filesystem from one server to another, without disruption to
clients. Recent implementation experience has shown problems in the
existing specification for this feature. This document discusses the
issues which have arisen, explores the options available for curing
the issues, and explains the choices made in updating the NFSv4.0 and
NFSv4.1 specifications, to address migration.
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 http://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 September 3, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. NFSv4.0 Implementation Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Implementation issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Failure to free migrated state on client reboot . . . 4
3.1.2. Server reboots resulting in a confused lease
situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Client complexity issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Sources of Protocol difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Issues with nfs_client_id4 generation and use . . . . 8
3.2.2. Issues with lease proliferation . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Issues to be resolved in NFSv4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Possible changes to nfs_client_id4 client-string . . . . 10
4.2. Possible changes to handle differing nfs_client_id4
string values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Possible changes to add a new operation . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Other issues within migration-state sections . . . . . . 12
4.5. Issues within other sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Proposed resolution of NFSv4.0 protocol difficulties . . . . 13
5.1. Proposed changes: nfs_client_id4 client-string . . . . . 14
5.2. Proposed changes: merged (vs. synchronized) leases . . . 14
5.3. Other proposed changes to migration-state sections . . . 16
5.3.1. Proposed changes: Client ID migration . . . . . . . . 16
5.3.2. Proposed changes: Callback re-establishment . . . . . 17
5.3.3. Proposed changes: NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED rework . . . . 17
5.4. Proposed changes to other sections . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.1. Proposed changes: callback update . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.2. Proposed changes: clientid4 handling . . . . . . . . 18
5.4.3. Proposed changes: NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE . . . . . . . . 19
6. Results of proposed changes for NFSv4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Results: Failure to free migrated state on client reboot 21
6.2. Results: Server reboots resulting in confused lease
situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3. Results: Client complexity issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4. Result summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Issues for NFSv4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Addressing state merger in NFSv4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2. Addressing pNFS relationship with migration . . . . . . . 25
7.3. Addressing server owner changes in NFSv4.1 . . . . . . . 25
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
This document is in the informational category, and while the facts
it reports may have normative implications, any such normative
significance reflects the readers' preferences. For example, we may
report that the reboot of a client with migrated state results in
state not being promptly cleared and that this will prevent granting
of conflicting lock requests at least for the lease time, which is a
fact. While it is to be expected that client and server implementers
will judge this to be a situation that is best avoided, the judgment
as to how pressing this issue should be considered is a judgment for
the reader, and eventually the nfsv4 working group to make.
We do explore possible ways in which such issues can be avoided, with
minimal negative effects, given that the working group has decided to
address these issues, but the choice of exactly how to address these
is best given effect in one or more standards-track documents and/or
errata.
This document focuses on NFSv4.0, since that is where the majority of
implementation experience has been. Nevertheless, there is
discussion of the implications of the NFSv4.0 experience for
migration in NFSv4.1, as well as discussion of other issues with
regard to the treatment of migration in NFSv4.1.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In the context of this informational document, these normative
keywords will always occur in the context of a quotation, most often
direct but sometimes indirect. The context will make it clear
whether the quotation is from:
o The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.0 protocol, whether
that is the original NFSv4.0 specification [RFC3530], or its
expected successor [RFC3530bis].
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
As the identity of that document may change during the lifetime of
this document, we will often refer to the current or pending
definition of NFSv4.0 and quote from portions of the documents
that are identical among all existing drafts. Given that RFC3530
and all RFC3530bis drafts agree as to the issues under discussion,
this should not cause undue difficulty. Note that to simplify
document maintenance, section names rather than section numbers
are used when referring to sections in existing documents so that
only minimal changes will be necessary as the identity of the
document defining NFSv4.0 changes.
o The current definitive definition of the NFSv4.1 protocol
[RFC5661].
o A proposed or possible text to serve as a replacement for the
current definitive document text. Sometimes, a number of possible
alternative texts may be listed and benefits and detriments of
each examined in turn.
3. NFSv4.0 Implementation Experience
3.1. Implementation issues
Note that the examples below reflect current experience which arises
from clients implementing the recommendation to use different
nfs_client_id4 id strings for different server addresses, i.e. using
what is later referred to herein as the "non-uniform client-string
approach."
This is simply because that is the experience implementers have had.
The reader should not assume that in all cases, this practice is the
source of the difficulty. It may be so in some cases but clearly it
is not in all cases.
3.1.1. Failure to free migrated state on client reboot
The following sort of situation has proved troublesome:
o A client C establishes a clientid4 C1 with server ABC specifying
an nfs_client_id4 with id string value "C-ABC" and boot verifier
0x111.
o The client begins to access files in filesystem F on server ABC,
resulting in generating stateids S1, S2, etc. under the lease for
clientid C1. It may also access files on other filesystems on the
same server.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
o The filesystem is migrated from server ABC to server XYZ. When
transparent state migration is in effect, stateids S1 and S2 and
clientid4 C1 are now available for use by client C at server XYZ.
o Client C reboots and attempts to access data on server XYZ,
whether in filesystem F or another. It does a SETCLIENTID with an
nfs_client_id4 with id string value "C-XYZ" and boot verifier
0x112. There is thus no occasion to free stateids S1 and S2 since
they are associated with a different client name and so lease
expiration is the only way that they can be gotten rid of.
Note here that while it seems clear to us in this example that C-XYZ
and C-ABC are from the same client, the server has no way to
determine the structure of the "opaque" id string. In the protocol,
it really is treated as opaque. Only the client knows which
nfs_client_id4 values designate the same client on a different
server.
3.1.2. Server reboots resulting in a confused lease situation
Further problems arise from scenarios like the following.
o Client C talks to server ABC using an nfs_client_id4 id string
such as "C-ABC" and a boot verifier v1. As a result, a lease with
clientid4 c.i is established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.i}.
o fs_a1 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ along with its state.
Now server XYZ also has a lease: {v1, "C-ABC", c.i}.
o Server ABC reboots.
o Client C talks to server ABC using an nfs_client_id4 id string
such as "C-ABC" and a boot verifier v1. As a result, a lease with
clientid4 c.j is established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.j}.
o fs_a2 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ. Now server XYZ also
has a lease: {v1, "C-ABC", c.j}.
o Now server XYZ has two leases that match {v1, "C-ABC", *}, when
the protocol clearly assumes there can be only one.
Note that if the client used "C" (rather than "C-ABC") as the
nfs_client_id4 id string, the exact same situation would arise.
One of the first cases in which this sort of situation has resulted
in difficulties is in connection with doing a SETCLIENTID for
callback update.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
The SETCLIENTID for callback update only includes the nfs_client_id4,
assuming there can only be one such with a given nfs_client_id4
value. If there were multiple, confirmed client records with
identical nfs_client_id4 id string values, there would be no way to
map the callback update request to the correct client record. Apart
from the migration handling specified in [RFC3530] and [RFC3530bis],
such a situation cannot arise.
One possible accommodation for this particular issue that has been
used is to add a RENEW operation along with SETCLIENTID (on a
callback update) to disambiguate the client.
When the client updates the callback info to the destination, the
client would, by convention, send a compound like this:
{ RENEW clientid4, SETCLIENTID nfs_client_id4,verf,cb }
The presence of the clientid4 in the compound would allow the server
to differentiate among the various leases that it knows of, all with
the same nfs_client_id4 value.
While this would be a reasonable patch for an isolated protocol
weakness, interoperable clients and servers would require that the
protocol truly be updated to allow such a situation, specifically
that of multiple clientid4's with the same nfs_client_id4 value. The
protocol is currently designed and implemented assuming this cannot
happen. We need to either prevent the situation from happening, or
fully adapt to the possibilities which can arise. See Section 4 for
a discussion of such issues.
3.1.3. Client complexity issues
Consider the following situation:
o There are a set of clients C1 through Cn accessing servers S1
through Sm. Each server manages some significant number of
filesystems with the filesystem count L being significantly
greater than m.
o Each client Cx will access a subset of the servers and so will
have up to m clientids, which we will call Cxy for server Sy.
o Now assume that for load-balancing or other operational reasons,
numbers of filesystems are migrated among the servers. As a
result, each client-server pair will have up to m clientids and
each client will have up to m**2 clientids. If we add the
possibility of server reboot, the only bound on a client's
clientid count is L.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
Now, instead of a clientid4 identifying a client-server pair, we have
many more entities for the client to deal with. In addition, it
isn't clear how new state is to be incorporated in this structure.
The limitations of the migrated state (inability to be freed on
reboot) would argue against adding more such state but trying to
avoid that would run into its own difficulties. For example, a
single lockowner string presented under two different clientids would
appear as two different entities.
Thus we have to choose between:
o indefinite prolongation of foreign clientids even after all
transferred state is gone.
o having multiple requests for the same lockowner-string-named
entity carried on in parallel by separate identically named
lockowners under different clientid4's
o Adding serialization at the lock-owner string level, in addition
to that at the lockowner level.
In any case, we have gone (in adding migration as it was described)
from a situation in which
o Each client has a single clientid4/lease for each server it talks
to.
o Each client has a single nfs_client_id4 for each server it talks
to.
o Every state id can be mapped to an associated lease based on the
server it was obtained from.
To one in which
o Each client may have multiple clientid4's for a single server.
o For each stateid, the client must separately record the clientid4
that it is assigned to, or it must manage separate "state blobs"
for each fsid and map those to clientid4's.
o Before doing an operation that can result in a stateid, the client
must either find a "state blob" based on fsid or create a new one,
possibly with a new clientid4.
o There may be multiple clientid4's all connected to the same server
and using the same nfs_clientid4.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
This sort of additional client complexity is troublesome and needs to
be eliminated.
3.2. Sources of Protocol difficulties
3.2.1. Issues with nfs_client_id4 generation and use
The current definitive definitions of the NFSv4.0 protocol, [RFC3530]
and [RFC3530bis] both agree. The section entitled "Client ID" says:
The second field, id is a variable length string that uniquely
defines the client.
There are two possible interpretations of the phrase "uniquely
defines" in the above:
o The relation between strings and clients is a function from such
strings to clients so that each string designates a single client.
o The relation between strings and clients is a bijection between
such strings and clients so that each string designates a single
client and each client is named by a single string.
The first interpretation would make these client-strings like phone
numbers (a single person can have several) while the second would
make them like social security numbers.
Endless debate about the true meaning of "uniquely defines" in this
context is quite possible but not very helpful. The following points
should be noted though:
o The second interpretation is more consistent with the way
"uniquely defines" is used elsewhere in the spec.
o The spec as now written intends the first interpretation (or is
internally inconsistent). In fact, it recommends, although it
doesn't "RECOMMEND" that a single client have at least as many
client-strings as server addresses that it interacts with. It
says, in the third bullet point regarding construction of the
string (which we shall henceforth refer to as client-string-BP3):
The string should be different for each server network address
that the client accesses, rather than common to all server
network addresses.
o If internode interactions are limited to those between a client
and its servers, there is no occasion for servers to be concerned
with the question of whether two client-strings designate the same
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
client, so that there is no occasion for the difference in
interpretation to matter.
o When transparent migration of client state occurs between two
servers, it becomes important to determine when state on two
different servers is for the same client or not, and this
distinction becomes very important.
Given the need for the server to be aware of client identity with
regard to migrated state, either client-string construction rules
will have to change or there will be a need to get around current
issues, or perhaps a combination of these two will be required.
Later sections will examine the options and propose a solution.
One consideration that may indicate that this cannot remain exactly
as it is today has to do with the fact that the current explanation
for this behavior is not correct. The current definitive definitions
of the NFSv4.0 protocol, [RFC3530] and [RFC3530bis] both agree. The
section entitled "Client ID" says:
The reason is that it may not be possible for the client to tell
if the same server is listening on multiple network addresses. If
the client issues SETCLIENTID with the same id string to each
network address of such a server, the server will think it is the
same client, and each successive SETCLIENTID will cause the server
to begin the process of removing the client's previous leased
state.
In point of fact, a "SETCLIENTID with the same id string" sent to
multiple network addresses will be treated as all from the same
client but will not "cause the server to begin the process of
removing the client's previous leased state" unless the server
believes it is a different instance of the same client, i.e. if the
id string is the same and there is a different boot verifier. If the
client does not reboot, the verifier should not change. If it does
reboot, the verifier will change, and the server should "begin the
process of removing the client's previous leased state.
The situation of multiple SETCLIENTID requests received by a server
on multiple network addresses is exactly the same, from the protocol
design point of view, as when multiple (i.e. duplicate) SETCLIENTID
requests are received by the server on a single network address. The
same protocol mechanisms that prevent erroneous state deletion in the
latter case prevent it in the former case. There is no reason for
special handling of the multiple-network-appearance case, in this
regard.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
3.2.2. Issues with lease proliferation
It is often felt that this is a consequence of the client-string
construction issues, and it is certainly the case that the two are
closely connected in that non-uniform client-strings make it
impossible for the server to appropriately combine leases from the
same client.
However, even where the server could combine leases from the same
client, it needs to be clear how and when it will do so, so that the
client will be prepared. These issues will have to be addressed at
various places in the spec.
This could be enough only if we are prepared to do away with the
"should" recommending non-uniform client-strings and replace it with
a "should not" or even a "SHOULD NOT". Current client implementation
patterns make this an unpalatable choice for use as a general
solution, but it is reasonable to "RECOMMEND" this choice for a well-
defined subset of clients. One alternative would be to create a way
for the server to infer from client behavior which leases are held by
the same client and use this information to do appropriate lease
mergers. Prototyping and detailed specification work has shown that
this could be done but the resulting complexity is such that a better
choice is to "RECOMMEND" use of the uniform client-string approach
for clients supporting the migration feature.
Because of the discussion of client-string construction in [RFC3530]
and [RFC3530bis], most existing clients implement the non-uniform
client-string approach. As a result, existing servers may not have
been tested with clients implementing uniform client-strings. As a
consequence, care must be taken to preserve interoperability between
UCS-capable clients and servers that don't tolerate uniform client
strings for one reason or another.
4. Issues to be resolved in NFSv4.0
4.1. Possible changes to nfs_client_id4 client-string
The fact that the reason given in client-string-BP3 is not valid
makes the existing "should" insupportable. We can't either
o Keep a reason we know is invalid.
o Keep saying "should" without giving a reason.
What are often presented as reasons that motivate use of the non-
uniform approach always turn out to be cases in which, if the uniform
approach were used, the server will treat a client which accesses
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
that server via two different IP addresses as part of a single
client, as it in fact is. This may be disconcerting to a client
unaware that the two IP addresses connect to the same server. This
is not a reason to use the non-uniform approach but is better thought
of as an illustration of the fact that those using the uniform
approach need to be aware of the possibility of server trunking and
its effect on server behavior.
If it is possible to reliably infer the existence of trunking of
server IP addresses from observed server behavior, use of the uniform
approach would be more desirable, although compatibility issues would
have to be dealt with.
An alternative to having the client infer the existence of trunking
of IP server addresses, is to make this information available to the
client directly. See Section 4.3 for details.
It is always possible that a valid new reason will be found, but so
far none has been proposed. Given the history, the burden of proof
should be on those asserting the validity of a proposed new reason.
So we will assume for now that the "should" will have to go. The
question is what to replace it with.
o We can't say "MUST NOT", despite the problems this raises for
migration since this is pretty late in the day for such a change.
Many currently operating clients obey the existing "should".
Similar considerations would apply for "SHOULD NOT" or "should
not".
o Dropping client-string-BP3 entirely is a possibility but, given
the context and history, it would just be a confusing version of
"SHOULD NOT".
o Using "MAY" would clearly specify that both ways of doing this are
valid choices for clients and that servers will have to deal with
clients that make either choice.
o This might be modified by a "SHOULD" (or even a "MUST") for
particular groups of clients.
o There will have to be some text explaining why a client might make
either choice but, except for the particular cases referred to
above, we will have to make sure that it is truly descriptive, and
not slanted in either direction.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
4.2. Possible changes to handle differing nfs_client_id4 string values
Given the difficulties caused by having different nfs_client_id4
client-string values for the same client, we have two choices:
o Deprecate the existing treatment and basically say the client is
on its own doing migration, if it follows it.
o Introduce a way of having the client provide client identity
information to the server, if it can be done compatibly while
staying within the bounds of v4.0.
4.3. Possible changes to add a new operation
It might be possible to return server-identity information to the
client, just as is done in NFSv4.1 by the response to the EXCHANGE_ID
operation. This could be done by a SETCLIENTID_PLUS optional
operation, which acts like SETCLIENTID, except that it returns server
identity information. Such information could be used by clients,
making it possible to for them to be aware of server trunking
relationships, rather than having to infer them from server behavior.
It has been generally thought that protocol extensions such as this
are not appropriate in bis documents and other documents updating
NFSv4 protocol definition RFC's. However, it is argued in [NFS-ext]
that protocol extensions, similar to those allowed between minor
versions, should be acceptable to correct mistakes within a minor
version.
A decision to adopt this approach will require considerable nfsv4
working group discussion and would probably best be effected by means
of a standards-track document laying out a modified NFSv4 extension/
versioning model applying to all minor versions, as has been
proposed.
In view of the time to effect such changes, this approach is not
likely to be adopted in an RFC updating [RFC3530] or [RFC3530bis],
such as [migr-v4.0-update]. Still, it is worth keeping in mind, if
implementers have difficulties inferring trunking relationships using
the techniques discussed there.
4.4. Other issues within migration-state sections
There are a number of issues where the existing text is unclear and/
or wrong and needs to be fixed in some way.
o Lack of clarity in the discussion of moving clientids (as well as
stateids) as part of moving state for migration.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
o The discussion of synchronized leases is wrong in that there is no
way to determine (in the current spec) when leases are for the
same client and also wrong in suggesting a benefit from leases
synchronized at the point of transfer. What is needed is merger
of leases, which is necessary to keep client complexity
requirements from getting out of hand.
o Lack of clarity in the discussion of LEASE_MOVED handling,
including failure to fully address situations in which transparent
state migration did not occur.
4.5. Issues within other sections
There are a number of cases in which certain sections, not
specifically related to migration, require additional clarification.
This is generally because text that is clear in a context in which
leases and clientids are created in one place and live there forever
may need further refinement in the more dynamic environment that
arises as part of migration.
Some examples:
o Some people are under the impression that updating callback
endpoint information for an existing client, as used during
migration, may cause the destination server to free existing
state. There need to be additions to clarify the situation.
o The handling of the sets of clientid4's maintained by each server
needs to be clarified. In particular, the issue of how the client
adapts to the presumably independent and uncoordinated clientid4
sets needs to be clearly addressed
o Statements regarding handling of invalid clientid4's need to be
clarified and/or refined in light of the possibilities that arise
due to lease motion and merger.
o Confusion and lack of clarity about NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE.
5. Proposed resolution of NFSv4.0 protocol difficulties
This section lists the changes which we believe are necessary to
resolve the difficulties mentioned above. Such change, along with
other clarifications found to be desirable during drafting and review
are contained in [migr-v4.0-update].
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
5.1. Proposed changes: nfs_client_id4 client-string
We propose replacing client-string-BP3 with the following text and
adding the following proposed to provide implementation guidance.
The string MAY be different for each server network address that
the client accesses, rather than common to all server network
addresses.
In addition, given the importance of the issue of client identity and
the fact that both client string-approaches are to be considered
valid, a greatly expanded treatment of client identity desirable. It
should have the following major elements.
o It should fully describe the consequences of making the string
different for each network address (the non-uniform client-string
approach) and of making it the same for all network addresses (the
uniform client string approach).
o It should give helpful guidance about the factors that might
affect client implementation choice between these approaches.
o It should describe the compatibility issues that might cause
servers to be incompatible with the uniform approach and give
guidance about dealing with these.
o It should describe how a client using the uniform approach might
use server behavior to determine server address trunking patterns.
o It should present a clearer and more complete set of
recommendations to guide client string construction.
5.2. Proposed changes: merged (vs. synchronized) leases
The current definitive definitions of the NFSv4.0 protocol, [RFC3530]
and [RFC3530bis] both agree. The section entitled "Migration and
State" says:
As part of the transfer of information between servers, leases
would be transferred as well. The leases being transferred to the
new server will typically have a different expiration time from
those for the same client, previously on the old server. To
maintain the property that all leases on a given server for a
given client expire at the same time, the server should advance
the expiration time to the later of the leases being transferred
or the leases already present. This allows the client to maintain
lease renewal of both classes without special effort:
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
There are a number of problems with this and any resolution of our
difficulties must address them somehow.
o The current v4.0 spec recommends that the client make it
essentially impossible to determine when two leases are from "the
same client".
o It is not appropriate to speak of "maintain[ing] the property that
all leases on a given server for a given client expire at the same
time", since this is not a property that holds even in the absence
of migration. A server listening on multiple network addresses
may have the same client appear as multiple clients with no way to
recognize the client as the same.
o Even if the client identity issue could be resolved, advancing the
lease time at the point of migration would not maintain the
desired synchronization property. The leases would be
synchronized until one of them was renewed, after which they would
be unsynchronized again.
To avoid client complexity, we need to have no more than one lease
between a single client and a single server. This requires merger of
leases since there is no real help from synchronizing them at a
single instant.
For the uniform approach, the destination server would simply merge
leases as part of state transfer, since two leases with the same
nfs_client_id4 values must be for the same client.
We have made the following decisions as far as proposed normative
statements regarding for state merger. They reflect the facts that
we want to support fully migration support in the simplest way
possible and that we can't say MUST since we have older clients and
servers to deal with.
o Clients SHOULD use the uniform client-string approach in order to
get good migration support.
o Servers SHOULD provide automatic lease merger during state
migration so that clients using the uniform id approach get the
support automatically.
If the clients and the servers obey the SHOULD's, having more than a
single lease for a given client-server pair will be a transient
situation, cleaned up as part of adapting to use of migrated state.
Since clients and servers will be a mixture of old and new and
because nothing is a MUST we have to ensure that no combination will
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
show worse behavior than is exhibited by current (i.e. old) clients
and servers.
5.3. Other proposed changes to migration-state sections
5.3.1. Proposed changes: Client ID migration
The current definitive definitions of the NFSv4.0 protocol, [RFC3530]
and [RFC3530bis] both agree. The section entitled "Migration and
State" says:
In the case of migration, the servers involved in the migration of
a filesystem SHOULD transfer all server state from the original to
the new server. This must be done in a way that is transparent to
the client. This state transfer will ease the client's transition
when a filesystem migration occurs. If the servers are successful
in transferring all state, the client will continue to use
stateids assigned by the original server. Therefore the new
server must recognize these stateids as valid. This holds true
for the client ID as well. Since responsibility for an entire
filesystem is transferred with a migration event, there is no
possibility that conflicts will arise on the new server as a
result of the transfer of locks.
This poses some difficulties, mostly because the part about "client
ID" is not clear:
o It isn't clear what part of the paragraph the "this" in the
statement "this holds true ..." is meant to signify.
o The phrase "the client ID" is ambiguous, possibly indicating the
clientid4 and possibly indicating the nfs_client_id4.
o If the text means to suggest that the same clientid4 must be used,
the logic is not clear since the issue is not the same as for
stateids of which there might be many. Adapting to the change of
a single clientid, as might happen as a part of lease migration,
is relatively easy for the client.
We have decided that it is best to address this issue as follows:
o Make it clear that both clientid4 and nfs_client_id4 (including
both id string and boot verifier) are to be transferred.
o Indicate that the initial transfer will result in the same
clientid4 after transfer but this is not guaranteed since there
may conflict with an existing clientid4 on the destination server
and because lease merger can result in a change of the clientid4.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
5.3.2. Proposed changes: Callback re-establishment
The current definitive definitions of the NFSv4.0 protocol, [RFC3530]
and [RFC3530bis] both agree. The section entitled "Migration and
State" says:
A client SHOULD re-establish new callback information with the new
server as soon as possible, according to sequences described in
sections "Operation 35: SETCLIENTID - Negotiate Client ID" and
"Operation 36: SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM - Confirm Client ID". This
ensures that server operations are not blocked by the inability to
recall delegations.
The above will need to be fixed to reflect the possibility of merging
of leases,
5.3.3. Proposed changes: NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED rework
The current definitive definitions of the NFSv4.0 protocol, [RFC3530]
and [RFC3530bis] both agree. The section entitled "Notification of
Migrated Lease" says:
Upon receiving the NFS4ERR_LEASE_MOVED error, a client that
supports filesystem migration MUST probe all filesystems from that
server on which it holds open state. Once the client has
successfully probed all those filesystems which are migrated, the
server MUST resume normal handling of stateful requests from that
client.
There is a lack of clarity that is prompted by ambiguity about what
exactly probing is and what the interlock between client and server
must be. This has led to some worry about the scalability of the
probing process, and although the time required does scale linearly
with the number of filesystems that the client may have state for
with respect to a given server, the actual process can be done
efficiently.
To address these issues we propose rewriting the above to be more
clear and to give suggestions about how to do the required scanning
efficiently.
5.4. Proposed changes to other sections
5.4.1. Proposed changes: callback update
Some changes are necessary to reduce confusion about the process of
callback information update and in particular to make it clear that
no state is freed as a result:
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
o Make it clear that after migration there are confirmed entries for
transferred clientid4/nfs_client_id4 pairs.
o Be explicit in the sections headed "otherwise," in the
descriptions of SETCLIENTID and SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM, that these
don't apply in the cases we are concerned about.
5.4.2. Proposed changes: clientid4 handling
To address both of the clientid4-related issues mentioned in
Section 4.5, we propose replacing the last three paragraphs of the
section entitled "Client ID" with the following:
Once a SETCLIENTID and SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM sequence has
successfully completed, the client uses the shorthand client
identifier, of type clientid4, instead of the longer and less
compact nfs_client_id4 structure. This shorthand client
identifier (a client ID) is assigned by the server and should be
chosen so that it will not conflict with a client ID previously
assigned by same server. This applies across server restarts or
reboots.
Distinct servers MAY assign clientid4's independently, and will
generally do so. Therefore, a client has to be prepared to deal
with multiple instances of the same clientid4 value received on
distinct IP addresses, denoting separate entities. When trunking
of server IP addresses is not a consideration, a client should
keep track of (IP-address, clientid4) pairs, so that each pair is
distinct. In the face of possible trunking of server IP
addresses, the client will use the receipt of the same clientid4
from multiple IP-addresses, as an indication that the two IP-
addresses may be trunked and proceed to determine, from the
observed server behavior whether the two addresses are in fact
trunked.
When a clientid4 is presented to a server and that clientid4 is
not recognized, the server will reject the request with the error
NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID. This can occur for a number of reasons:
* A server reboot causing loss of the server's knowledge of the
client
* Client error sending an incorrect clientid4 or a valid
clientid4 to the wrong server.
* Loss of lease state due to lease expiration.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
* Client or server error causing the server to believe that the
client has rebooted (i.e. receiving a SETCLIENTID with an
nfs_client_id4 which has a matching id string and a non-
matching boot verifier).
* Migration of all state under the associated lease causes its
non-existence to be recognized on the source server.
* Merger of state under the associated lease with another lease
under a different clientid causes the clientid4 serving as the
source of the merge to cease being recognized on its server.
In the event of a server reboot, or loss of lease state due to
lease expiration, the client must obtain a new clientid4 by use of
the SETCLIENTID operation and then proceed to any other necessary
recovery for the server reboot case (See the section entitled
"Server Failure and Recovery"). In cases of server or client
error resulting in this error, use of SETCLIENTID to establish a
new lease is desirable as well.
In the last two cases, different recovery procedures are required.
Note that in cases in which there is any uncertainty about which
sort of handling is applicable, the distinguishing characteristic
is that in reboot-like cases, the clientid4 and all associated
stateids cease to exist while in migration-related cases, the
clientid4 ceases to exist while the stateids are still valid.
The client must also employ the SETCLIENTID operation when it
receives a NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID error using a stateid derived
from its current clientid4, since this indicates a situation, such
as server reboot which has invalidated the existing clientid4 and
associated stateids (see the section entitled "lock-owner" for
details).
See the detailed descriptions of SETCLIENTID and
SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM for a complete specification of the
operations.
5.4.3. Proposed changes: NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE
It appears to be the intention that only a single principal be used
for client establishment between any client-server pair. However:
o There is no explicit statement to this effect.
o The error that indicates a principal conflict has a name which
does not clarify this issue: NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
o The definition of the error is also not very helpful: "The
SETCLIENTID operation has found that a client id is already in use
by another client".
As a result, servers exist which reject a SETCLIENTID simply because
there already exists a clientid for the same client, established
using a different IP address. Although this is generally understood
to be erroneous, such servers still exist and the spec should make
the correct behavior clear.
Although the error name cannot be changed, the following changes
should be made to avoid confusion:
o The definition of the error should be changed to read as follows:
The SETCLIENTID operation has found that the specified
nfs_client_id4 was previously presented with a different
principal and that client instance currently holds an active
lease. A server MAY return this error if the same principal is
used but a change in authentication flavor gives good reason to
reject the new SETCLIENTID operation as not bona fide.
o In the description of SETCLIENTID, the phrase "then the server
returns a NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE error" should be expanded to read
"then the server returns a NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE error, since use of
a single client with multiple principals is not allowed."
6. Results of proposed changes for NFSv4.0
The purpose of this section is to examine the troubling results
reported in Section 3.1. We will look at the scenarios as they would
be handled within the proposal.
Because the choice of uniform vs. non-uniform nfs_client_id4 id
strings is a "SHOULD" in these cases, we will designate clients that
follow this recommendation by SHOULD-UF-CID.
We will also have to take account of any merger-related "SHOULD"
clauses to better understand how they have addressed the issues seen.
We abbreviate as follows:
o SHOULD-SVR-AM refers to the server obeying the SHOULD which
RECOMMENDS that they merge leases with identical nfs_client_id4 id
strings and boot verifiers.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
6.1. Results: Failure to free migrated state on client reboot
Let's look at the troublesome situation cited in Section 3.1.1. We
have already seen what happens when SHOULD-UF-CID does not hold. Now
let's look at the situation in which SHOULD-UF-CID holds, whether
SHOULD-SVR-AM is in effect or not.
o A client C establishes a clientid4 C1 with server ABC specifying
an nfs_client_id4 with id string value "C" and boot verifier
0x111.
o The client begins to access files in filesystem F on server ABC,
resulting in generating stateids S1, S2, etc. under the lease for
clientid C1. It may also access files on other filesystems on the
same server.
o The filesystem is migrated from ABC to server XYZ. When
transparent state migration is in effect, stateids S1 and S2 and
lease {0x111, "C", C1} are now available for use by client C at
server XYZ.
o Client C reboots and attempts to access data on server XYZ,
whether in filesystem F or another. It does a SETCLIENTID with an
nfs_client_id4 with id string value "C" and boot verifier 0x112.
The state associated with lease {0x111, "C", C1} is deleted as
part of creating {0x112, "C", C2}. No problem.
The correctness signature for this issue is
SHOULD-UF-CID
so if you have clients and servers that obey the SHOULD clauses, the
problem is gone regardless of the choice on the MAY.
6.2. Results: Server reboots resulting in confused lease situation
Now let's consider the scenario given in Section 3.1.2. We have
already seen what happens when SHOULD-UF-CID does not hold . Now
let's look at the situation in which SHOULD-UF-CID holds and SHOULD-
SVR-AM holds as well.
o Client C talks to server ABC using an nfs_client_id4 id string
such as "C-ABC" and boot verifier v1. As a result a lease with
clientid4 c.i established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.i}.
o Filesystem fs_a1 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ along with
its state. Now server XYZ also has a lease: {v1, "C-ABC", c.i}
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
o Server ABC reboots.
o Client C talks to server ABC using an nfs_client_id4 id string
such as "C-ABC" and boot verifier v1. As a result a lease with
clientid4 c.j established: {v1, "C-ABC", c.j}.
o fs_a2 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ. As part of
migration the incoming lease is seen to denote same nfs_client_id4
and so is merged with {v1, "C-ABC, c.i}.
o Now server XYZ has only one lease that matches {v1, "C_ABC", *},
so the problem is solved
Now let's consider the same scenario in the situation in which
SHOULD-UF-CID holds and SHOULD-SVR-AM holds as well.
o Client C talks to server ABC using an nfs_client_id4 id string "C"
and boot verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.i is
established: {v1, "C", c.i}.
o fs_a1 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ along with its state.
Now XYZ also has a lease: {v1, "C", c.i}
o Server ABC reboots.
o Client C talks to server ABC using an nfs_client_id4 id string "C"
and boot verifier v1. As a result a lease with clientid4 c.j is
established: {v1, "C", c.j}.
o fs_a2 migrates from server ABC to server XYZ. As part of
migration the incoming lease is seen to denote the same
nfs_client_id4 and so is merged with {v1, "C", c.i}.
o Now server XYZ has only one lease that matches {v1, "C", *}, so
the problem is solved
The correctness signature for this issue is
SHOULD-SVR-AM
so if you have clients and servers that obey the SHOULD clauses, the
problem is gone regardless of the choice on the MAY.
6.3. Results: Client complexity issues
Consider the following situation:
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
o There are a set of clients C1 through Cn accessing servers S1
through Sm. Each server manages some significant number of
filesystems with the filesystem count L being significantly
greater than m.
o Each client Cx will access a subset of the servers and so will
have up to m clientids, which we will call Cxy for server Sy.
o Now assume that for load-balancing or other operational reasons,
numbers of filesystems are migrated among the servers. As a
result, depending on how this handled, the number of clientids may
explode. See below.
Now look what will happen under various scenarios:
o We have previously (in Section 3.1.3) looked at this in case of
client following the non-uniform client-string approach. In that
case, each client-server pair could have up to m clientids and
each client will have up to m**2 clientids. If we add the
possibility of server reboot, the only bound on a client's
clientid count is L.
o If we look at this in the SHOULD-UF-CID case in which the SHOULD-
SVR_AM condition holds, the situation is no different. Although
the server has the client identity information that could enable
same-client-same-server leases to be combined, it does not do so.
We still have up to L clientids per client.
o On the other hand, if we look at the SHOULD-UF-CID case in which
SHOULD-SVR-AM holds, the problem is gone. There can be no more
than m clientids per client, and n clientids per server.
The correctness signature for this issue is
(SHOULD-UF-CID & SHOULD-SVR-AM)
so if you have clients and servers that obey the SHOULD clauses, the
problem is gone regardless of the choice on the MAY.
6.4. Result summary
We have seen that (SHOULD-SVR-AM & SHOULD-UF-CID) are sufficient to
solve the problems people have experienced.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
7. Issues for NFSv4.1
Because NFSv4.1 embraces the uniform client-string approach,
addressing migration issues is simpler. In the terms of Section 6,
we already have SHOULD-UF-CID, for NFSv4.1, as advised by section 2.4
of [RFC5661], simplifying the work to be done.
Nevertheless, there are some issues that will have to be addressed.
Some examples:
o The other necessary part of addressing migration issues, which we
call above SHOULD-SVR-AM, is not currently addressed by NFSv4.1
and changes need to be made to make it clear that state needs to
be appropriately merged as part of migration, to avoid multiple
clientids between a client-server pair.
o There needs to be some clarification of how migration, and
particularly transparent state migration, should interact with
pNFS layouts.
o The current discussion (in [RFC5661]), of the possibility of
server_owner changes is incomplete and confusing.
Discussion of how to resolve these issues will appear in the sections
below.
7.1. Addressing state merger in NFSv4.1
The existing treatment of state transfer in [RFC5661], has similar
problems to that in [RFC3530] and [RFC3530bis] in that it assumes
that the state for multiple filesystems on different servers will not
be merged to so that it appears under a single common clientid.
We've already seen the reasons that this is a problem, with regard to
NFSv4.0.
Although we don't have the problems stemming from the non-uniform
client-string approach, there are a number of complexities in the
existing treatment of state management in the section entitled "Lock
State and File System Transitions" in [RFC5661] that make this non-
trivial to address:
o Migration is currently treated together with other sorts of
filesystem transitions including transitioning between replicas
without any NFS4ERR_MOVED errors.
o There is separate handling and discussion of the cases of matching
and non-matching server scopes.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
o In the case of matching server scopes, the text calls for an
impossible degree of transparency.
o In the case of non-matching server scopes, the text does not
mention transparent state migration at all, resulting in a
functional regression from NFSV4.0
7.2. Addressing pNFS relationship with migration
This is made difficult because, within the PNFS framework, migration
might mean any of several things:
o Transfer of the MDS, leaving DS's alone.
This would be minimally disruptive to those using layouts but
would require the pNFS control protocol to support the DS being
directed to a new MDS.
o Transfer of a DS, leaving everything else in place.
Such a transfer can be handled without using migration at all.
The server can recall/revoke layouts, as appropriate.
o Transfer of the filesystem to a new filesystem with both MDS and
DS's moving.
In such a transfer, an entirely different set of DS's will be at
the target location. There may even be no pNFS support on the
destination filesystem at all.
Migration needs to support both the first and last of these models.
7.3. Addressing server owner changes in NFSv4.1
Section 2.10.5 of [RFC5661] states the following.
The client should be prepared for the possibility that
eir_server_owner values may be different on subsequent EXCHANGE_ID
requests made to the same network address, as a result of various
sorts of reconfiguration events. When this happens and the
changes result in the invalidation of previously valid forms of
trunking, the client should cease to use those forms, either by
dropping connections or by adding sessions. For a discussion of
lock reclaim as it relates to such reconfiguration events, see
Section 8.4.2.1.
While this paragraph is literally true in that such reconfiguration
events can happen and clients have to deal with them, it is confusing
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
in that it can be read as suggesting that clients have to deal with
them without disruption, which in general is impossible.
A clearer alternative would be:
It is always possible that, as a result of various sorts of
reconfiguration events, eir_server_scope and eir_server_owner
values may be different on subsequent EXCHANGE_ID requests made to
the same network address.
In most cases such reconfiguration events will be disruptive and
indicate that an IP address formerly connected to one server is
now connected to an entirely different one.
Some guidelines on client handling of such situations follow:
* When eir_server_scope changes, the client has no assurance that
any id's it obtained previously (e.g. file handles) can be
validly used on the new server, and, even if the new server
accepts them, there is no assurance that this is not due to
accident. Thus it is best to treat all such state as lost/
stale although a client may assume that the probability of
inadvertent acceptance is low and treat this situation as
within the next case.
* When eir_server_scope remains the same and
eir_server_owner.so_major_id changes, the client can use
filehandles it has and attempt reclaims. It may find that
these are now stale but if NFS4ERR_STALE is not received, he
can proceed to reclaim his opens.
* When eir_server_scope and eir_server_owner.so_major_id remain
the same, the client has to use the now-current values of
eir_server-owner.so_minor_id in deciding on appropriate forms
of trunking.
8. Security Considerations
With regard to NFSv4.0, the current definitive definitions of the
protocol, [RFC3530] and [RFC3530bis] both agree. The section
entitled "Security Considerations" encourages that clients protect
the integrity of the SECINFO operation, any GETATTR operation for the
fs_locations attribute, and the operations SETCLIENTID/
SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM. A migration recovery event can use any or all
of these operations. We do not recommend any change here.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
With regard to NFSv4.1, the Security Considerations section of
[RFC5661] takes proper care of migration-related issues. No change
is needed.
9. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
10. Acknowledgements
The editor and authors of this document gratefully acknowledge the
contributions of Trond Myklebust of NetApp and Robert Thurlow of
Oracle. We also thank Tom Haynes of NetApp and Spencer Shepler of
Microsoft for their guidance and suggestions.
Special thanks go to members of the Oracle Solaris NFS team,
especially Rick Mesta and James Wahlig, for their work implementing
an NFSv4.0 migration prototype and identifying many of the issues
documented here.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R.,
Beame, C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System
(NFS) version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003.
[RFC3530bis]
Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System
(NFS) Version 4 Protocol", 2014, <http://www.ietf.org/id/
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-35.txt>.
Work in progress.
[RFC5661] Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File
System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC
5661, January 2010.
11.2. Informative References
[NFS-ext] Noveck, D., "NFS Protocol Extension: Retrospect and
Prospect", 2014, <http://www.ietf.org/id/
draft-dnoveck-nfs-extension-01.txt>.
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
Work in progress.
[migr-v4.0-update]
Noveck, D., Ed., Shivam, P., Lever, C., and B. Baker,
"NFSv4.0 migration: Specification Update", 2015,
<http://www.ietf.org/id/
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530-migration-update-06.txt>.
Work in progress.
Authors' Addresses
David Noveck (editor)
Dell
300 Innovative Way
Nashua, NH 03062
US
Phone: +1 781 572 8038
Email: dave_noveck@dell.com
Piyush Shivam
Oracle Corporation
5300 Riata Park Ct.
Austin, TX 78727
US
Phone: +1 512 401 1019
Email: piyush.shivam@oracle.com
Charles Lever
Oracle Corporation
1015 Granger Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
US
Phone: +1 248 614 5091
Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft nfsv4-migr-issues March 2015
Bill Baker
Oracle Corporation
5300 Riata Park Ct.
Austin, TX 78727
US
Phone: +1 512 401 1081
Email: bill.baker@oracle.com
Noveck, et al. Expires September 3, 2015 [Page 29]