rfc9737.original   rfc9737.txt 
Network File System Version 4 T. Haynes Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Haynes
Internet-Draft T. Myklebust Request for Comments: 9737 T. Myklebust
Intended status: Standards Track Hammerspace Category: Standards Track Hammerspace
Expires: 25 May 2025 21 November 2024 ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2025
Reporting of Errors via LAYOUTRETURN in NFSv4.2 Reporting Errors in NFSv4.2 via LAYOUTRETURN
draft-ietf-nfsv4-layrec-04
Abstract Abstract
The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows for a file's metadata The Parallel Network File System (pNFS) allows for a file's metadata
(MDS) and data (DS) to be on different servers. When the metadata and data to be on different servers (i.e., the metadata server (MDS)
server is restarted, the client can still modify the data file and the data server (DS)). When the MDS is restarted, the client can
component. During the recovery phase of startup, the metadata server still modify the data file component. During the recovery phase of
and the data servers work together to recover state (which files are startup, the MDS and the DSs work together to recover state. If the
open, last modification time, size, etc.). If the client has not client has not encountered errors with the data files, then the state
encountered errors with the data files, then the state can be can be recovered and the resilvering of the data files can be
recovered, avoiding resilvering of the data files. With any errors, avoided. With any errors, there is no means by which the client can
there is no means by which the client can report errors to the report errors to the MDS. As such, the MDS has to assume that a file
metadata server. As such, the metadata server has to assume that needs resilvering. This document presents an extension to RFC 8435
file needs resilvering. This document presents an extension to to allow the client to update the metadata via LAYOUTRETURN and avoid
RFC8435 to allow the client to update the metadata and avoid the the resilvering.
resilvering.
Note
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this draft takes place on the NFSv4 working group
mailing list (nfsv4@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/. Working Group
information can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nfsv4/
about/.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 May 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9737.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Definitions
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Requirements Language
2. Layout State Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Layout State Recovery
2.1. When to Resilver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. When to Resilver
2.2. Version Mismatch Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Version Mismatch Considerations
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Security Considerations
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. References
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Normative References
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the Network File System version4 (NFSv4) with a Parallel NFS In the Network File System version 4 (NFSv4) with a Parallel NFS
(pNFS) Flexible File Layout ([RFC8435]) server, during recovery after (pNFS) flexible file layout [RFC8435] server, during recovery after a
a restart, there is no mechanism for the client to inform the restart, there is no mechanism for the client to inform the metadata
metadata server about an error which occurred during a WRITE (see server (MDS) about an error that occurred during a WRITE operation
Section 18.32 of [RFC8881]) operation to the data servers in the (see Section 18.32 of [RFC8881]) to the data servers (DSs) in the
period of the outage. period of the outage.
Using the process detailed in [RFC8178], the revisions in this Using the process detailed in [RFC8178], the revisions in this
document become an extension of NFSv4.2 [RFC7862]. They are built on document become an extension of NFSv4.2 [RFC7862]. They are built on
top of the external data representation (XDR) [RFC4506] generated top of the External Data Representation (XDR) [RFC4506] generated
from [RFC7863]. from [RFC7863].
1.1. Definitions 1.1. Definitions
See Section 1.1 of [RFC8435] for a set of definitions. See Section 1.1 of [RFC8435] for a set of definitions.
1.2. Requirements Language 1.2. Requirements Language
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Layout State Recovery 2. Layout State Recovery
When a metadata server restarts, clients are provided a grace When an MDS restarts, clients are provided a grace recovery period
recovery period where they are allowed to recover any state that they where they are allowed to recover any state that they had
had established. With open files, the client can send an OPEN (see established. With open files, the client can send an OPEN operation
Section 18.16 of [RFC8881]) operation with a claim type of (see Section 18.16 of [RFC8881]) with a claim type of CLAIM_PREVIOUS
CLAIM_PREVIOUS (see Section 9.11 of [RFC8881]). The client uses the (see Section 9.11 of [RFC8881]). The client uses the
RECLAIM_COMPLETE (see Section 18.51 of [RFC8881]) operation to notify RECLAIM_COMPLETE operation (see Section 18.51 of [RFC8881]) to notify
the metadata server that it is done reclaiming state. the MDS that it is done reclaiming state.
The NFSv4 Flexible File Layout Type allows for the client to mirror The NFSv4 flexible file layout type allows for the client to mirror
files (see Section 8 of [RFC8435]). With client side mirroring, it files (see Section 8 of [RFC8435]). With client-side mirroring, it
is important for the client to inform the metadata server of any I/O is important for the client to inform the MDS of any I/O errors
errors encountered with one of the mirrors. This is the only way for encountered with one of the mirrors. This is the only way for the
the metadata server to determine one or more of the mirrors is MDS to determine if one or more of the mirrors are corrupt and then
corrupt and then repair the mirrors via resilvering (see Section 1.1 repair the mirrors via resilvering (see Section 1.1 of [RFC8435]).
of [RFC8435]). The client can use LAYOUTRETURN (see Section 18.44 of The client can use LAYOUTRETURN (see Section 18.44 of [RFC8881]) and
[RFC8881]) and the ff_ioerr4 (see Section 9.1.1 of [RFC8435]) the ff_ioerr4 structure (see Section 9.1.1 of [RFC8435]) to inform
structure to inform the metadata server of I/O errors. the MDS of I/O errors.
A problem is that when the metadata server restarts and the client A problem arises when the MDS restarts and the client has errors it
has errors it needs to report, it can not do so. Section 12.7.4 of needs to report but cannot do so. Section 12.7.4 of [RFC8881]
[RFC8881] requires that the client MUST stop using layouts. While requires that the client MUST stop using layouts. While the intent
the intent there is that the client MUST stop doing I/O to the there is that the client MUST stop doing I/O to the storage devices,
storage devices, it is also true that the layout stateids are no it is also true that the layout stateids are no longer valid. The
longer valid. The LAYOUTRETURN needs a layout stateid to proceed and LAYOUTRETURN needs a layout stateid to proceed, and the client cannot
the client can not get a layout during grace recovery (see get a layout during grace recovery (see Section 12.7.4 of [RFC8881])
Section 12.7.4 of [RFC8881]) to recover layout state. As such, to recover layout state. As such, clients have no choice but to not
clients have no choice but to not recover files with I/O errors. In recover files with I/O errors. In turn, the MDS MUST assume that the
turn, the metadata server MUST assume that the mirrors are mirrors are inconsistent and pick one for resilvering. It is a MUST
inconsistent and pick one for resilvering. It is a MUST because even because even if the MDS can determine that the client did modify data
if the metadata server can determine that the client did modify data
during the outage, it MUST NOT assume those modifications were during the outage, it MUST NOT assume those modifications were
consistent. consistent.
To fix this issue, the metadata server MUST accept for the To fix this issue, the MDS MUST accept the anonymous stateid of all
lrf_stateid in LAYOUTRETURN (see Section 18.44.1 of [RFC8881]) the zeros (see Section 8.2.3 of [RFC8881]) for the lrf_stateid in
anonymous stateid of all zeros (see Section 8.2.3 of [RFC8881]). The LAYOUTRETURN (see Section 18.44.1 of [RFC8881]). The client can use
client can use this anonymous stateid to inform the metadata server this anonymous stateid to inform the MDS of errors encountered. The
of errors encountered. The metadata server can then accurately MDS can then accurately resilver the file by picking the mirror(s)
resilver the file by picking the mirror(s) that do not have any that does not have any associated errors.
associated errors.
During the grace period, if the client sends a lrf_stateid in the During the grace period, if the client sends an lrf_stateid in the
LAYOUTRETURN with any value other than the anonymous stateid of all LAYOUTRETURN with any value other than the anonymous stateid of all
zeros, then the metadata server MUST now respond with an error of zeros, then the MDS MUST respond with an error of NFS4ERR_GRACE (see
NFS4ERR_GRACE (see Section of 15.1.9.2 [RFC8881]). After the grace Section 15.1.9.2 of [RFC8881]). After the grace period, if the
period, if the client sends a lrf_stateid in the LAYOUTRETURN with a client sends an lrf_stateid in the LAYOUTRETURN with a value of the
value of the anonymous stateid of all zeros, then the metadata server anonymous stateid of all zeros, then the MDS MUST respond with an
MUST now respond with an error of NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE (see error of NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE (see Section 15.1.9.3 of [RFC8881]).
Section 15.1.9.3 of [RFC8881]).
Also, when the metadata server builds the reply to the LAYOUTRETURN Also, when the MDS builds the reply to the LAYOUTRETURN with an
when a lrf_stateid with the value of the anonymous stateid of all lrf_stateid with the value of the anonymous stateid of all zeros, it
zeros it MUST NOT bump the seqid of the lorr_stateid. MUST NOT bump the seqid of the lorr_stateid.
If the metadata server detects that the layout being returned in the If the MDS detects that the layout being returned in the LAYOUTRETURN
LAYOUTRETURN does not match the current mirror instances found for does not match the current mirror instances found for the file, then
the file, then it MUST ignore the LAYOUTRETURN and resilver the file it MUST ignore the LAYOUTRETURN and resilver the file in question.
in question.
The metadata server MUST resilver any files which are neither The MDS MUST resilver any files that are neither explicitly recovered
explicitly recovered with a CLAIM_PREVIOUS nor have a reported error with a CLAIM_PREVIOUS nor have a reported error via a LAYOUTRETURN.
via a LAYOUTRETURN. The client has most likely restarted and lost The client has most likely restarted and lost any state.
any state.
2.1. When to Resilver 2.1. When to Resilver
A write intent occurs when a client opens a file and gets a A write intent occurs when a client opens a file and gets a
LAYOUTIOMODE4_RW from the metadata server. The metadata server MUST LAYOUTIOMODE4_RW from the MDS. The MDS MUST track outstanding write
track outstanding write intents and when it restarts, it MUST track intents, and when it restarts, it MUST track recovery of those write
recovery of those write intents. The method that the metadata server intents. The method that the MDS uses to track write intents is
uses to track write intents is implementation specific, i.e., outside implementation specific, i.e., outside the scope of this document.
of the scope of this document.
The decision to resilver a file depends on how the client recovers The decision to resilver a file depends on how the client recovers
the file before the grace period ends. If the client reclaims the the file before the grace period ends. If the client reclaims the
file and reports no errors, the metadata server MUST NOT resilver the file and reports no errors, the MDS MUST NOT resilver the file. If
file. If the client reports an error on the file, then the file MUST the client reports an error on the file, then the file MUST be
be resilvered. If the client does not reclaim or report an error resilvered. If the client does not reclaim or report an error before
before the grace period ends, then under the old behavior, the the grace period ends, then under the old behavior, the MDS MUST
metadata server MUST resilver the file. resilver the file.
The resilvering process is broadly to: The resilvering process is broadly to:
1. fence the file (see Section 2.2 of [RFC8435]), 1. fence the file (see Section 2.2 of [RFC8435]),
2. record the need to resilver, 2. record the need to resilver,
3. release the write intent, and 3. release the write intent, and
4. once there are no write intents on the file, start the 4. once there are no write intents on the file, start the
resilvering process. resilvering process.
The metadata server MUST NOT resilver a file if there are clients The MDS MUST NOT resilver a file if there are clients with
with outstanding write intents. I.e., multiple clients might have outstanding write intents, i.e., multiple clients might have the file
the file open with write intents. As it MUST track write intents, it open with write intents. As the MDS MUST track write intents, it
MUST also track the need to resilver. I.e., if the metadata server MUST also track the need to resilver, i.e., if the MDS restarts
restarts during the grace period, it MUST restart the file recovery during the grace period, it MUST restart the file recovery if it
if it replays the write intent else it MUST start the resilvering if replays the write intent, or else it MUST start the resilvering if it
it replays the resilvering intent. replays the resilvering intent.
Whether the metadata server prevents all I/O to the file until the Whether the MDS prevents all I/O to the file until the resilvering is
resilvering is done or forces all I/O to go through the metadata done, forces all I/O to go through the MDS, or allows a proxy server
server or allows a proxy server to update the new data file as it is to update the new data file as it is being resilvered is all an
being reslivered is all an implementation choice. The constraint is implementation choice. The constraint is that the MDS is responsible
that the metadata server is responsible for the reconstruction of the for the reconstruction of the data file and for the consistency of
data file and for the consistency of the mirrors. the mirrors.
If the metadata server does allow the client access to the file If the MDS does allow the client access to the file during the
during the resilvering, then the client MUST have the same layout resilvering, then the client MUST have the same layout (set of mirror
(set of mirror instances) after the metadata server as before. One instances) after the MDS as before. One way that such a resilvering
way that such a resilvering can occur is for a proxy server to be can occur is for a proxy server to be inserted into the layout. That
inserted into the layout. That server will be copying a good mirror server will be copying a good mirror instance to a new instance. As
instance to a new instance. As it gets I/O via the layout, it will it gets I/O via the layout, it will be responsible for updating the
be responsible for updating the copy it is performing. This copy it is performing. This requirement is that the proxy server
requirement is that the proxy server MUST stay in the layout until MUST stay in the layout until the grace period is finished.
the grace period is finished.
2.2. Version Mismatch Considerations 2.2. Version Mismatch Considerations
The metadata server has no expectations for the client to use this The MDS has no expectations for the client to use this new
new functionality. Therefore, if the client does not use it, the functionality. Therefore, if the client does not use it, the MDS
metadata server will function normally. will function normally.
If the client does use the new functionality and the metadata server If the client does use the new functionality and the MDS does not
does not support it, then the metadata server MUST reply with a support it, then the MDS MUST reply with a NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID to the
NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID to the LAYOUTRETURN. If the client detects a LAYOUTRETURN. If the client detects a NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID error in
NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID error in this scenario, it should fall back to this scenario, it should fall back to the old behavior of not
the old behavior of not reporting errors. reporting errors.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
There are no new security considerations beyond those in [RFC7862]. There are no new security considerations beyond those in [RFC7862].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations for this document. This document has no IANA actions.
5. References 5. References
5.1. Normative References 5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 7, line 10 skipping to change at line 265
[RFC8435] Halevy, B. and T. Haynes, "Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible [RFC8435] Halevy, B. and T. Haynes, "Parallel NFS (pNFS) Flexible
File Layout", RFC 8435, DOI 10.17487/RFC8435, August 2018, File Layout", RFC 8435, DOI 10.17487/RFC8435, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8435>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8435>.
[RFC8881] Noveck, D., Ed. and C. Lever, "Network File System (NFS) [RFC8881] Noveck, D., Ed. and C. Lever, "Network File System (NFS)
Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 8881, Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 8881,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8881, August 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8881, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8881>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8881>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
Tigran Mkrtchyan, Jeff Layton, and Rick Macklem provided reviews of Tigran Mkrtchyan, Jeff Layton, and Rick Macklem provided reviews of
the document. the document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Thomas Haynes Thomas Haynes
Hammerspace Hammerspace
Email: loghyr@gmail.com Email: loghyr@gmail.com
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
165 lines changed or deleted 144 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.