[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 1/4] fs: Add generic file system event notifications
On 2015-04-17 12:22, Jan Kara wrote:
> 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
The use-case that immediately comes to mind for me would be diskless
nodes with root-on-nfs needing to know if they can actually access the
root filesystem.

[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-17 19:01    [W:0.106 / U:1.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site