Re: [Nbd] NBD wishlist items?

[Wouter V. <w...@ut...>]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:17:03PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On 6/21/07, Wouter Verhelst <w...@ut...> wrote:
> >I'm thinking it would be good to extend the protocol with two packets,
> >one PING and one PONG
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >I don't think any other way can reliably allow either the client or the
> >server to detect the other end's death. We're using TCP keepalive probes
> >right now already, and there's the -a option to nbd-server, but both are
> >not really a good solution -- the former because it takes literally days
> >to discover a lost connection, the latter because it a) assumes that
> >there is never a good reason for a client to be inactive for more than
> >the time given on the nbd-server command line, b) only allows the server
> >to detect the death of the client, never the other way around, and,
> >well, c) because the implementation is broken currently :)
> 
> Do you have intentions of fixing the 2.9.x nbd-server's -a ?

I have higher priorities currently, but I certainly do not have the
intent to throw it out. It has some uses, I'm sure.

> Even though it has its limits it does offer a means to timeout the
> child nbd-server reliably; but IFF steps are taken to make sure there
> is nbd-client activity within the specified timeout.

True.

> It is useful for me so I'd like to see it revived.  I could look at
> the code to see why its broken... I remember the 2.8.x code to be
> fairly subtle in this area.  You helped me understand the
> implementation over email some time ago.

I don't recall that :)

> But I'm not sure of how drastically 2.9.x's nbd-server has changed;

Tbh, neither am I.

[...]

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22