NFSv4 Working Group Tom Talpey
Internet-Draft NetApp
Intended status: Standards Track Brent Callaghan
Expires: October 17, 2008 Apple
April 16, 2008
NFS Direct Data Placement
draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-08
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This draft defines the bindings of the various Network File System
(NFS) versions to the Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) operations
supported by the RPC/RDMA transport protocol. It describes the use
of direct data placement by means of server-initiated RDMA operations
into client-supplied buffers for implementations of NFS versions 2,
3, 4 and 4.1 over such an RDMA transport.
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. NFS Version 4 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. NFS Version 4 Callbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Port Usage Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . 11
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Requirements Language
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].
1. Introduction
The Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) Transport for Remote Procedure
Calls (RPC) [RPCRDMA] allows an RPC client application to post
buffers in a Chunk list for specific arguments and results from an
RPC call. The RDMA transport header conveys this list of client
buffer addresses to the server where the application can associate
them with client data and use RDMA operations to transfer the results
directly to and from the posted buffers on the client. The client
and server must agree on a consistent mapping of posted buffers to
RPC. This document details the mapping for each version of the NFS
protocol [RFC1094] [RFC1813] [RFC3530] [NFSv4.1].
2. Transfers from NFS Client to NFS Server
The RDMA Read list, in the RDMA transport header, allows an RPC
client to marshal RPC call data selectively. Large chunks of data,
such as the file data of an NFS WRITE request, MAY be referenced by
an RDMA Read list and be moved efficiently and directly-placed by an
RDMA Read operation initiated by the server.
The process of identifying these chunks for the RDMA Read list can be
implemented entirely within the RPC layer. It is transparent to the
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
upper-level protocol, such as NFS. For instance, the file data
portion of an NFS WRITE request can be selected as an RDMA "chunk"
within the eXternal Data Representation (XDR) marshaling code of RPC
based on a size criterion, independently of the NFS protocol layer.
The XDR unmarshaling on the receiving system can identify the
correspondence between Read chunks and protocol elements via the XDR
position value encoded in the Read chunk entry.
RPC RDMA Read chunks are employed by this NFS mapping to convey
specific NFS data to the server in a manner which may be directly
placed. The following sections describe this mapping for versions of
the NFS protocol.
3. Transfers from NFS Server to NFS Client
The RDMA Write list, in the RDMA transport header, allows the client
to post one or more buffers into which the server will RDMA Write
designated result chunks directly. If the client sends a null Write
list, then results from the RPC call will be returned as either an
inline reply, as chunks in an RDMA Read list of server-posted
buffers, or in a client-posted reply buffer.
Each posted buffer in a Write list is represented as an array of
memory segments. This allows the client some flexibility in
submitting discontiguous memory segments into which the server will
scatter the result. Each segment is described by a triplet
consisting of the segment handle or steering tag (STag), segment
length, and memory address or offset.
struct xdr_rdma_segment {
uint32 handle; /* Registered memory handle */
uint32 length; /* Length of the chunk in bytes */
uint64 offset; /* Chunk virtual address or offset */
};
struct xdr_write_chunk {
struct xdr_rdma_segment target<>;
};
struct xdr_write_list {
struct xdr_write_chunk entry;
struct xdr_write_list *next;
};
The sum of the segment lengths yields the total size of the buffer,
which MUST be large enough to accept the result. If the buffer is
too small, the server MUST return an XDR encode error. The server
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
MUST return the result data for a posted buffer by progressively
filling its segments, perhaps leaving some trailing segments unfilled
or partially full if the size of the result is less than the total
size of the buffer segments.
The server returns the RDMA Write list to the client with the segment
length fields overwritten to indicate the amount of data RDMA Written
to each segment. Results returned by direct placement MUST NOT be
returned by other methods, e.g., by Read chunk list or inline. If no
result data at all is returned for the element, the server places no
data in the buffer(s), but does return zeroes in the segment length
fields corresponding to the result.
The RDMA Write list allows the client to provide multiple result
buffers - each buffer maps to a specific result in the reply. The
NFS client and server implementations agree by specifying the mapping
of results to buffers for each RPC procedure. The following sections
describe this mapping for versions of the NFS protocol.
Through the use of RDMA Write lists in NFS requests, it is not
necessary to employ the RDMA Read lists in the NFS replies, as
described in the RPC/RDMA protocol. This enables more efficient
operation, by avoiding the need for the server to expose buffers for
RDMA, and also avoiding "RDMA_DONE" exchanges. Clients MAY
additionally employ RDMA Reply chunks to receive entire messages, as
described in [RPCRDMA].
4. NFS Versions 2 and 3 Mapping
A single RDMA Write list entry MAY be posted by the client to receive
either the opaque file data from a READ request or the pathname from
a READLINK request. The server MUST ignore a Write list for any
other NFS procedure, as well as any Write list entries beyond the
first in the list.
Similarly, a single RDMA Read list entry MAY be posted by the client
to supply the opaque file data for a WRITE request or the pathname
for a SYMLINK request. The server MUST ignore any Read list for
other NFS procedures, as well as additional Read list entries beyond
the first in the list.
Because there are no NFS version 2 or 3 requests that transfer bulk
data in both directions, it is not necessary to post requests
containing both Write and Read lists. Any unneeded Read or Write
lists are ignored by the server.
In the case where the outgoing request or expected incoming reply is
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
larger than the maximum size supported on the connection, it is
possible for the RPC layer to post the entire message or result in a
special "RDMA_NOMSG" message type which is transferred entirely by
RDMA. This is implemented in RPC, below NFS and therefore has no
effect on the message contents.
Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers MAY OPTIONALLY employ the
"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the
appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding
allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned
fashion, which may improve server performance.
The NFS version 2 and 3 protocols are frequently limited in practice
to requests containing less than or equal to 8 kilobytes and 32
kilobytes of data, respectively. In these cases, it is often
practical to support basic operation without employing a
configuration exchange as discussed in [RPCRDMA]. The server MUST
post buffers large enough to receive the largest possible incoming
message (approximately 12KB for NFS version 2, or 36KB for NFS
version 3, would be vastly sufficient), and the client can post
buffers large enough to receive replies based on the "rsize" it is
using to the server, plus a fixed overhead for the RPC and NFS
headers. Because the server MUST NOT return data in excess of this
size, the client can be assured of the adequacy of its posted buffer
sizes.
Flow control is handled dynamically by the RPC RDMA protocol, and
write padding is OPTIONAL and therefore MAY remain unused.
Alternatively, if the server is administratively configured to values
appropriate for all its clients, the same assurance of
interoperability within the domain can be made.
The use of a configuration protocol with NFS v2 and v3 is therefore
OPTIONAL. Employing a configuration exchange may allow some
advantage to server resource management through accurately sizing
buffers, enabling the server to know exactly how many RDMA Reads may
be in progress at once on the client connection, and enabling client
write padding which may be desirable for certain servers when RDMA
Read is impractical.
5. NFS Version 4 Mapping
This specification applies to the first minor version of NFS version
4 (NFSv4.0) and any subsequent minor versions that do not override
this mapping.
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
The Write list MUST be considered only for the COMPOUND procedure.
This procedure returns results from a sequence of operations. Only
the opaque file data from an NFS READ operation, and the pathname
from a READLINK operation MUST utilize entries from the Write list.
If there is no Write list, i.e., the list is null, then any READ or
READLINK operations in the COMPOUND MUST return their data inline.
The NFSv4.0 client MUST ensure in this case that any result of its
READ and READLINK requests will fit within its receive buffers, in
order to avoid a resulting RDMA transport error upon transfer. The
server is not required to detect this.
The first entry in the Write list MUST be used by the first READ or
READLINK in the COMPOUND request. The next Write list entry by the
by the next READ or READLINK, and so on. If there are more READ or
READLINK operations than Write list entries, then any remaining
operations MUST return their results inline.
If a Write list entry is presented, then the corresponding READ or
READLINK MUST return its data via an RDMA Write to the buffer
indicated by the Write list entry. If the Write list entry has zero
RDMA segments, or if the total size of the segments is zero, then the
corresponding READ or READLINK operation MUST return its result
inline.
The following example shows an RDMA Write list with three posted
buffers A, B, and C. The designated operations in the compound
request, READ and READLINK, consume the posted buffers by writing
their results back to each buffer.
RDMA Write list:
A --> B --> C
Compound request:
PUTFH LOOKUP READ PUTFH LOOKUP READLINK PUTFH LOOKUP READ
| | |
v v v
A B C
If the client does not want to have the READLINK result returned
directly, then it provides a zero length array of segment triplets
for buffer B or sets the values in the segment triplet for buffer B
to zeros so that the READLINK result MUST be returned inline.
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
The situation is similar for RDMA Read lists sent by the client and
applies to the NFSv4.0 WRITE and SYMLINK procedures as for v3.
Additionally, inline segments too large to fit in posted buffers MAY
be transferred in special "RDMA_NOMSG" messages.
Non-RDMA (inline) WRITE transfers MAY OPTIONALLY employ the
"RDMA_MSGP" padding method described in the RPC/RDMA protocol, if the
appropriate value for the server is known to the client. Padding
allows the opaque file data to arrive at the server in an aligned
fashion, which may improve server performance. In order to ensure
accurate alignment for all data, it is likely that the client will
restrict its use of OPTIONAL padding to COMPOUND requests containing
only a single WRITE operation.
Unlike NFS versions 2 and 3, the maximum size of an NFS version 4
COMPOUND is not bounded, even when RDMA chunks are in use. While it
might appear that a configuration protocol exchange (such as the one
described in [RPCRDMA]) would help, in fact the layering issues
involved in building COMPOUNDs by NFS make such a mechanism
unworkable.
However, typical NFS version 4 clients rarely issue such problematic
requests. In practice, they behave in much more predictable ways, in
fact most still support the traditional rsize/wsize mount parameters.
Therefore, most NFS version 4 clients function over RPC/RDMA in the
same way as NFS versions 2 and 3, operationally.
There are however advantages to allowing both client and server to
operate with prearranged size constraints, for example use of the
sizes to better manage the server's response cache. An extension to
NFS version 4 supporting a more comprehensive exchange of upper layer
parameters is part of [NFSv4.1].
5.1. NFS Version 4 Callbacks
The NFS version 4 protocols support server-initiated callbacks to
selected clients, in order to notify them of events such as recalled
delegations, etc. These callbacks present no particular issue to
being framed over RPC/RDMA, since such callbacks do not carry bulk
data such as NFS READ or NFS WRITE. They MAY be transmitted inline
via RDMA_MSG, or if the callback message or its reply overflow the
negotiated buffer sizes for a callback connection, they MAY be
transferred via the RDMA_NOMSG method as described above for other
exchanges.
One special case is noteworthy: in NFS version 4.1, the callback
channel is optionally negotiated to be on the same connection as one
used for client requests. In this case, and because the XID is
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
present in the RPC/RDMA header, the client MUST ascertain whether the
message is in fact an RPC REPLY, and therefore a reply to a prior
request and carrying its XID, before processing it as such. By the
same token, the server MUST ascertain whether an incoming message on
such a callback-eligible connection is an RPC CALL, before optionally
processing the XID.
In the callback case, the XID present in the RPC/RDMA header will
potentially have any value which may (or may not) collide with an XID
used by the client for a previous or future request. The client and
server MUST inspect the RPC component of the message to determine its
potential disposition as either an RPC CALL or RPC REPLY, prior to
processing this XID, and MUST NOT reject or accept it without also
determining the proper context.
6. Port Usage Considerations
NFS use of direct data placement introduces a need for an additional
NFS port number assignment for networks which share traditional UDP
and TCP port spaces with RDMA services. The iWARP [RFC5041]
[RFC5040] protocol is such an example (Infiniband is not).
NFS servers for versions 2 and 3 [RFC1094] [RFC1813] traditionally
listen for clients on UDP and TCP port 2049, and additionally, they
register these with the portmapper and/or rpcbind [RFC1833] service.
However, [RFC3530] requires NFS servers for version 4 to listen on
TCP port 2049, and they are not required to register.
An NFS version 2 or version 3 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a
network and registering itself with the RPC portmapper MAY choose an
arbitrary port, or MAY use the alternative well-known port number for
its RPC/RDMA service. The chosen port MAY be registered with the RPC
portmapper under the netid assigned by the requirement in [RPCRDMA].
An NFS version 4 server supporting RPC/RDMA on such a network MUST
use the alternative well-known port number for its RPC/RDMA service.
Clients SHOULD connect to this well-known port without consulting the
RPC portmapper (as for NFSv4/TCP).
The port number assigned to an NFS service over an RPC/RDMA transport
is available from the IANA port registry [RFC3232].
7. Security Considerations
The RDMA transport for RPC [RPCRDMA] supports all RPC [RFC1831bis]
security models, including RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203] security and link-
level security. The choice of RDMA Read and RDMA Write to return RPC
argument and results, respectively, does not affect this, since it
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
only changes the method of data transfer. Specifically, the
requirements of [RPCRDMA] ensure that this choice does not introduce
new vulnerabilities.
Because this document defines only the binding of the NFS protocols
atop [RPCRDMA], all relevant security considerations are therefore to
be described at that layer.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dave Noveck and Chet Juszczak for
their contributions to this document.
10. Normative References
[RFC2119]
S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels",
Best Current Practice,
BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC1094]
"NFS: Network File System Protocol Specification",
(NFS version 2) Informational RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1094.txt
[RFC1831bis]
R. Thurlow, Ed., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
Specification Version 2",
Standards Track RFC
[RFC1813]
B. Callaghan, B. Pawlowski, P. Staubach, "NFS Version 3 Protocol
Specification",
Informational RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt
[RFC1833]
R. Srinivasan, "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
Standards Track RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1833.txt
[RFC3530]
S. Shepler, et al., "NFS version 4 Protocol",
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
Standards Track RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt
[NFSv4.1]
S. Shepler et al., ed., "NFSv4 Minor Version 1"
Internet Draft Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1
[RFC2203]
M. Eisler, A. Chiu, L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification",
Standards Track RFC,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2203.txt
11. Informative References
[RFC3232]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),
Port Registry database,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3232.txt
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
[RPCRDMA]
T. Talpey, B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access Transport
for Remote Procedure Call"
Internet Draft Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma
[RFC5041]
H. Shah et al., "Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports",
Standards Track RFC
[RFC5040]
R. Recio et al., "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
Specification",
Standards Track RFC
12. Authors' Addresses
Tom Talpey
Network Appliance, Inc.
1601 Trapelo Road, #16
Waltham, MA 02451 USA
Phone: +1 781 768 5329
EMail: thomas.talpey@netapp.com
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
Brent Callaghan
Apple Computer, Inc.
MS: 302-4K
2 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014 USA
EMail: brentc@apple.com
13. Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NFS Direct Data Placement April 2008
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Expires: October 2008 Talpey and Callaghan [Page 12]