lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications
On Fri 17-04-15 17:08:10, John Spray wrote:
>
> On 17/04/2015 16:43, Jan Kara wrote:
> >On Fri 17-04-15 15:51:14, John Spray wrote:
> >>On 17/04/2015 14:23, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >>
> >>>For some filesystems, it may make sense to differentiate between a
> >>>generic warning and an error. For BTRFS and ZFS for example, if
> >>>there is a csum error on a block, this will get automatically
> >>>corrected in many configurations, and won't require anything like
> >>>fsck to be run, but monitoring applications will still probably
> >>>want to be notified.
> >>Another key differentiation IMHO is between transient errors (like
> >>server is unavailable in a distributed filesystem) that will block
> >>the filesystem but might clear on their own, vs. permanent errors
> >>like unreadable drives that definitely will not clear until the
> >>administrator takes some action. It's usually a reasonable
> >>approximation to call transient issues warnings, and permanent
> >>issues errors.
> > So you can have events like FS_UNAVAILABLE and FS_AVAILABLE but what use
> >would this have? I wouldn't like the interface to be dumping ground for
> >random crap - we have dmesg for that :).
> In that case I'm confused -- why would ENOSPC be an appropriate use
> of this interface if the mount being entirely blocked would be
> inappropriate? Isn't being unable to service any I/O a more
> fundamental and severe thing than being up and healthy but full?
>
> Were you intending the interface to be exclusively for data
> integrity issues like checksum failures, rather than more general
> events about a mount that userspace would probably like to know
> about?
Well, I'm not saying we cannot have those events for fs availability /
inavailability. I'm just saying I'd like to see some use for that first.
I don't want events to be added just because it's possible...

For ENOSPC we have thin provisioned storage and the userspace deamon
shuffling real storage underneath. So there I know the usecase.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-17 19:01    [W:0.097 / U:1.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site