[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 5663

NFSv4 Working Group                                      David L. Black
Internet Draft                                         Stephen Fridella
Expires: February 28, 2007                              EMC Corporation
                                                        August 30, 2006



                         pNFS Block/Volume Layout
                    draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block-01.txt


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

   This Internet-Draft will expire in February 2007.

Abstract

   Parallel NFS (pNFS) extends NFSv4 to allow clients to directly access
   file data on the storage used by the NFSv4 server.  This ability to
   bypass the server for data access can increase both performance and
   parallelism, but requires additional client functionality for data
   access, some of which is dependent on the class of storage used.  The
   main pNFS operations draft specifies storage-class-independent
   extensions to NFS; this draft specifies the additional extensions
   (primarily data structures) for use of pNFS with block and volume
   based storage.



Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


Conventions used in this document

   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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Block Layout Description.......................................3
      2.1. Background and Architecture...............................3
      2.2. Data Structures: Extents and Extent Lists.................4
         2.2.1. Layout Requests and Extent Lists.....................6
         2.2.2. Layout Commits.......................................7
         2.2.3. Layout Returns.......................................8
         2.2.4. Client Copy-on-Write Processing......................9
         2.2.5. Extents are Permissions.............................10
         2.2.6. End-of-file Processing..............................11
      2.3. Volume Identification....................................12
      2.4. Crash Recovery Issues....................................14
   3. Security Considerations.......................................14
   4. Conclusions...................................................16
   5. IANA Considerations...........................................16
   6. Revision History..............................................16
   7. Acknowledgments...............................................17
   8. References....................................................17
      8.1. Normative References.....................................17
      8.2. Informative References...................................18
   Author's Addresses...............................................18
   Intellectual Property Statement..................................18
   Disclaimer of Validity...........................................19
   Copyright Statement..............................................19
   Acknowledgment...................................................19
















Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006



1. Introduction

   Figure 1 shows the overall architecture of a pNFS system:

       +-----------+
       |+-----------+                                 +-----------+
       ||+-----------+                                |           |
       |||           |        NFSv4 + pNFS            |           |
       +||  Clients  |<------------------------------>|   Server  |
        +|           |                                |           |
         +-----------+                                |           |
              |||                                     +-----------+
              |||                                           |
              |||                                           |
              |||                +-----------+              |
              |||                |+-----------+             |
              ||+----------------||+-----------+            |
              |+-----------------|||           |            |
              +------------------+||  Storage  |------------+
                                  +|  Systems  |
                                   +-----------+

                        Figure 1 pNFS Architecture

   The overall approach is that pNFS-enhanced clients obtain sufficient
   information from the server to enable them to access the underlying
   storage (on the Storage Systems) directly.  See the pNFS portion of
   [NFSV4.1] for more details.  This draft is concerned with access from
   pNFS clients to Storage Systems over storage protocols based on
   blocks and volumes, such as the SCSI protocol family (e.g., parallel
   SCSI, FCP for Fibre Channel, iSCSI, SAS).  This class of storage is
   referred to as block/volume storage.  While the Server to Storage
   System protocol is not of concern for interoperability here, it will
   typically also be a block/volume protocol when clients use block/
   volume protocols.

2. Block Layout Description

2.1. Background and Architecture

   The fundamental storage abstraction supported by block/volume storage
   is a storage volume consisting of a sequential series of fixed size
   blocks.  This can be thought of as a logical disk; it may be realized
   by the Storage System as a physical disk, a portion of a physical
   disk or something more complex (e.g., concatenation, striping, RAID,



Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   and combinations thereof) involving multiple physical disks or
   portions thereof.

   A pNFS layout for this block/volume class of storage is responsible
   for mapping from an NFS file (or portion of a file) to the blocks of
   storage volumes that contain the file.  The blocks are expressed as
   extents with 64 bit offsets and lengths using the existing NFSv4
   offset4 and length4 types.  Clients must be able to perform I/O to
   the block extents without affecting additional areas of storage
   (especially important for writes), therefore extents MUST be aligned
   to 512-byte boundaries, and SHOULD be aligned to the block size used
   by the NFSv4 server in managing the actual filesystem (4 kilobytes
   and 8 kilobytes are common block sizes).  This block size is
   available as an NFSv4 attribute - see Section 11.4 of [NFSV4.1].

   The pNFS operation for requesting a layout (LAYOUTGET) includes the
   "pnfs_layoutiomode4 iomode" argument which indicates whether the
   requested layout is for read-only use or read-write use.  A read-only
   layout may contain holes that are read as zero, whereas a read-write
   layout will contain allocated, but uninitialized storage in those
   holes (read as zero, can be written by client).  This draft also
   supports client participation in copy on write by providing both
   read-only and uninitialized storage for the same range in a layout.
   Reads are initially performed on the read-only storage, with writes
   going to the uninitialized storage.  After the first write that
   initializes the uninitialized storage, all reads are performed to
   that now-initialized writeable storage, and the corresponding read-
   only storage is no longer used.

2.2. Data Structures: Extents and Extent Lists

   A pNFS block layout is a list of extents within a flat array of 512-
   byte data blocks known as a volume.  A volume may correspond to a
   single logical unit in a SAN, or a more complex aggregation of
   multiple logical units.  The details of the volume topology can be
   determined by using the GETDEVICEINFO or GETDEVICELIST operation (see
   discussion of volume identification, section 2.3 below).  The block
   layout describes the individual block extents on the volume that make
   up the file.  Each individual extent MUST be at least 512-byte
   aligned.









Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006




   enum extentState4 {

     READ_WRITE_DATA  = 0, /* the data located by this extent is valid
                              for reading and writing. */

     READ_DATA = 1,        /* the data located by this extent is valid
                              for reading only; it may not be written.
                              */

     INVALID_DATA = 2,     /* the location is valid; the data is
                              invalid. It is a newly (pre-) allocated
                              extent. There is physical space on the
                              volume. */

     NONE_DATA = 3,        /* the location is invalid. It is a hole in
                              the file. There is no physical space on
                              the volume. */

   };

   struct pnfs_block_extent {

     offset4         offset;          /* the starting offset in the
                                         file */

     length4         length;          /* the size of the extent */

     offset4         storage_offset;  /* the starting offset in the
                                         volume */

     extentState4    es;              /* the state of this extent */

   };



   struct pnfs_block_layout {

      pnfs_deviceid4    volume;        /* logical volume on which file
                                         is stored. */

      pnfs_block_extent extents<>;     /* extents which make up this
                                         layout. */

   };


Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   The block layout consists of an identifier of the logical volume on
   which the file is stored, followed by a list of extents which map the
   logical regions of the file to physical locations on the volume.  The
   "storage_offset" field within each extent identifies a location on
   the logical volume described by the "volume" field in the layout.
   The client is responsible for translating this logical offset into an
   offset on the appropriate underlying SAN logical unit.

   Each extent maps a logical region of the file onto a portion of the
   specified logical volume.  The file_offset, extent_length, and es
   fields for an extent returned from the server are always valid. The
   interpretation of the storage_offset field depends on the value of es
   as follows:

   o  READ_WRITE_DATA means that storage_offset is valid, and points to
      valid/initialized data that can be read and written.

   o  READ_DATA means that storage_offset is valid and points to valid/
      initialized data which can only be read.  Write operations are
      prohibited; the client may need to request a read-write layout.

   o  INVALID_DATA means that storage_offset is valid, but points to
      invalid uninitialized data. This data must not be physically read
      from the disk until it has been initialized.  A read request for
      an INVALID_DATA extent must fill the user buffer with zeros. Write
      requests must write whole server-sized blocks to the disk with
      bytes not initialized by the user must be set to zero.  Any write
      to storage in an INVALID_DATA extent changes the written portion
      of the extent to READ_WRITE_DATA; the pNFS client is responsible
      for reporting this change via LAYOUTCOMMIT.

   o  NONE_DATA means that storage_offset is not valid, and this extent
      may not be used to satisfy write requests. Read requests may be
      satisfied by zero-filling as for INVALID_DATA. NONE_DATA extents
      are returned by requests for readable extents; they are never
      returned if the request was for a writeable extent.

   The extent list lists all relevant extents in increasing order of the
   file_offset of each extent; any ties are broken by increasing order
   of the extent state (es).

2.2.1. Layout Requests and Extent Lists

   Each request for a layout specifies at least three parameters:
   offset, desired size, and minimum size.  If the status of a request
   indicates success, the extent list returned must meet the following
   criteria:


Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   o  A request for a readable (but not writeable) layout returns only
      READ_DATA or NONE_DATA extents (but not INVALID_DATA or
      READ_WRITE_DATA extents).

   o  A request for a writeable layout returns READ_WRITE_DATA or
      INVALID_DATA extents (but not NONE_DATA extents).  It may also
      return READ_DATA extents only when the offset ranges in those
      extents are also covered by INVALID_DATA extents to permit writes.

   o  The first extent in the list MUST contain the starting offset.

   o  The total size of extents in the extent list MUST cover at least
      the minimum size and no more than the desired size.  One exception
      is allowed: the total size MAY be smaller if only readable extents
      were requested and EOF is encountered.

   o  Extents in the extent list MUST be logically contiguous for a
      read-only layout.  For a read-write layout, the set of writable
      extents (i.e., excluding READ_DATA extents) MUST be logically
      contiguous.  Every READ_DATA extent in a read-write layout MUST be
      covered by an INVALID_DATA extent.  This overlap of READ_DATA and
      INVALID_DATA extents is the only permitted extent overlap.

   o  Extents MUST be ordered in the list by starting offset, with
      READ_DATA extents preceding INVALID_DATA extents in the case of
      equal file_offsets.

2.2.2. Layout Commits

   struct pnfs_block_layoutupdate {

     pnfs_block_extent commit_list<>; /* list of extents to which now
                                         contain valid data. */

     bool              make_version;  /* client requests server to
                                         create copy-on-write image of
                                         this file. */

   }

   The "pnfs_block_layoutupdate" structure is used by the client as the
   block-protocol specific argument in a LAYOUTCOMMIT operation.  The
   "commit_list" field is an extent list covering regions of the file
   layout that were previously in the INVALID_DATA state, but have been
   written by the client and should now be considered in the
   READ_WRITE_DATA state.  It should be noted that the server may be
   unable to commit regions at a granularity smaller than a file-system


Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   block (typically 4KB or 8KB).  As noted above, the block-size that
   the server uses is available as an NFSv4 attribute, and any extents
   included in the "commit_list" must be aligned on this granularity.
   If the client believes that its actions have moved the end-of-file
   into the middle of a block being committed, the client MUST write
   zeroes from the end-of-file to the end of that block before
   committing the block.  Failure to do so may result in junk
   (uninitialized data) appearing in that area if the file is
   subsequently extended by moving the end-of-file.

   The "make_version" field of the structure is a flag that the client
   may set to request that the server create a copy-on-write image of
   the file (pNFS clients may be involved in this operation - see
   section 2.2.4, below).  In anticipation of this operation the client
   which sets the "make_version" flag in the LAYOUTCOMMIT operation
   should immediately mark all extents in the layout that is possesses
   as state READ_DATA.  Future writes to the file require a new
   LAYOUTGET operation to the server with an "iomode" set to
   LAYOUTIOMODE_RW.

2.2.3. Layout Returns

   struct pnfs_block_layoutreturn {

     pnfs_block_extent rel_list<>;    /* list of extents the client
                                         will no longer use. */

   }

   The "rel_list" field is an extent list covering regions of the file
   layout that are no longer needed by the client.  Including extents in
   the "rel_list" for a LAYOUTRETURN operation represents an explicit
   release of resources by the client, usually done for the purpose of
   avoiding unnecessary CB_LAYOUTRECALL operations in the future.

   Note that the block/volume layout supports unilateral layout
   revocation. When a layout is unilaterally revoked by the server,
   usually due to the client's lease timer expiring or the client
   failing to return a layout in a timely manner, it is important for
   the sake of correctness that any in-flight I/Os that the client
   issued before the layout was revoked are rejected at the storage.
   For the block/volume protocol, this is possible by fencing a client
   with an expired layout timer from the physical storage.  Note,
   however, that the granularity of this operation can only be at the
   host/logical-unit level.  Thus, if one of a client's layouts is
   unilaterally revoked by the server, it will effectively render



Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   useless *all* of the client's layouts for files in the same
   filesystem.

2.2.4. Client Copy-on-Write Processing

   Distinguishing the READ_WRITE_DATA and READ_DATA extent types in
   combination with the allowed overlap of READ_DATA extents with
   INVALID_DATA extents allows copy-on-write processing to be done by
   pNFS clients. In classic NFS, this operation would be done by the
   server.  Since pNFS enables clients to do direct block access, it is
   useful for clients to participate in copy-on-write operations.  All
   block/volume pNFS clients MUST support this copy-on-write processing.

   When a client wishes to write data covered by a READ_DATA extent, it
   MUST have requested a writable layout from the server; that layout
   will contain INVALID_DATA extents to cover all the data ranges of
   that layout's READ_DATA extents. More precisely, for any file_offset
   range covered by one or more READ_DATA extents in a writable layout,
   the server MUST include one or more INVALID_DATA extents in the
   layout that cover the same file_offset range. When performing a write
   to such an area of a layout, the client MUST effectively copy the
   data from the READ_DATA extent for any partial blocks of file_offset
   and range, merge in the changes to be written, and write the result
   to the INVALID_DATA extent for the blocks for that file_offset and
   range. That is, if entire blocks of data are to be overwritten by an
   operation, the corresponding READ_DATA blocks need not be fetched,
   but any partial-block writes must be merged with data fetched via
   READ_DATA extents before storing the result via INVALID_DATA extents.
   For the purposes of this discussion, "entire blocks" and "partial
   blocks" refer to the server's file-system block size.  Storing of
   data in an INVALID_DATA extent converts the written portion of the
   INVALID_DATA extent to a READ_WRITE_DATA extent; all subsequent reads
   MUST be performed from this extent; the corresponding portion of the
   READ_DATA extent MUST NOT be used after storing data in an
   INVALID_DATA extent.

   In the LAYOUTCOMMIT operation that normally sends updated layout
   information back to the server, for writable data, some INVALID_DATA
   extents may be committed as READ_WRITE_DATA extents, signifying that
   the storage at the corresponding storage_offset values has been
   stored into and is now to be considered as valid data to be read.
   READ_DATA extents are not committed to the server. For extents that
   the client receives via LAYOUTGET as INVALID_DATA and returns via
   LAYOUTCOMMIT as READ_WRITE_DATA, the server will understand that the
   READ_DATA mapping for that extent is no longer valid or necessary for
   that file.



Black                   Expires February 2007                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


2.2.5. Extents are Permissions

   Layout extents returned to pNFS clients grant permission to read or
   write; READ_DATA and NONE_DATA are read-only (NONE_DATA reads as
   zeroes), READ_WRITE_DATA and INVALID_DATA are read/write,
   (INVALID_DATA reads as zeros, any write converts it to
   READ_WRITE_DATA).  This is the only client means of obtaining
   permission to perform direct I/O to storage devices; a pNFS client
   MUST NOT perform direct I/O operations that are not permitted by an
   extent held by the client.  Client adherence to this rule places the
   pNFS server in control of potentially conflicting storage device
   operations, enabling the server to determine what does conflict and
   how to avoid conflicts by granting and recalling extents to/from
   clients.

   Block/volume class storage devices are not required to perform read
   and write operations atomically.  Overlapping concurrent read and
   write operations to the same data may cause the read to return a
   mixture of before-write and after-write data.  Overlapping write
   operations can be worse, as the result could be a mixture of data
   from the two write operations; this can be particularly nasty if the
   underlying storage is striped and the operations complete in
   different orders on different stripes.  A pNFS server can avoid these
   conflicts by implementing a single writer XOR multiple readers
   concurrency control policy when there are multiple clients who wish
   to access the same data.  This policy SHOULD be implemented when
   storage devices do not provide atomicity for concurrent read/write
   and write/write operations to the same data.

   A client that makes a layout request that conflicts with an existing
   layout delegation will be rejected with the error
   NFS4ERR_LAYOUTTRYLATER.  This client is then expected to retry the
   request after a short interval.  During this interval the server
   needs to recall the conflicting portion of the layout delegation from
   the client that currently holds it.  This reject-and-retry approach
   does not prevent client starvation when there is contention for the
   layout of a particular file.  For this reason a pNFS server SHOULD
   implement a mechanism to prevent starvation.  One possibility is that
   the server can maintain a queue of rejected layout requests.  Each
   new layout request can be checked to see if it conflicts with a
   previous rejected request, and if so, the newer request can be
   rejected. Once the original requesting client retries its request,
   its entry in the rejected request queue can be cleared, or the entry
   in the rejected request queue can be removed when it reaches a
   certain age.




Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   NFSv4 supports mandatory locks and share reservations.  These are
   mechanisms that clients can use to restrict the set of I/O operations
   that are permissible to other clients.  Since all I/O operations
   ultimately arrive at the NFSv4 server for processing, the server is
   in a position to enforce these restrictions.  However, with pNFS
   layout delegations, I/Os will be issued from the clients that hold
   the delegations directly to the storage devices that host the data.
   These devices have no knowledge of files, mandatory locks, or share
   reservations, and are not in a position to enforce such restrictions.
   For this reason the NFSv4 server MUST NOT grant layout delegations
   that conflict with mandatory locks or share reservations.  Further,
   if a conflicting mandatory lock request or a conflicting open request
   arrives at the server, the server MUST recall the part of the layout
   delegation in conflict with the request before processing the
   request.

2.2.6. End-of-file Processing

   The end-of-file location can be changed in two ways: implicitly as
   the result of a WRITE or LAYOUTCOMMIT beyond the current end-of-file,
   or explicitly as the result of a SETATTR request.  Typically, when a
   file is truncated by an NFSv4 client via the SETATTR call, the server
   frees any disk blocks belonging to the file which are beyond the new
   end-of-file byte, and may write zeros to the portion of the new end-
   of-file block beyond the new end-of-file byte.  These actions render
   any pNFS layouts which refer to the blocks that are freed or written
   semantically invalid.  Therefore, the server MUST recall from clients
   the portions of any pNFS layouts which refer to blocks that will be
   freed or written by the server before processing the truncate
   request. These recalls may take time to complete; as explained in
   [NFSv4.1], if the server cannot respond to the client SETATTR request
   in a reasonable amount of time, it SHOULD reply to the client with
   the error NFS4ERR_DELAY.

   Blocks in the INVALID_DATA state which lie beyond the new end-of-file
   block present a special case.  The server has reserved these blocks
   for use by a pNFS client with a writable layout for the file, but the
   client has yet to commit the blocks, and they are not yet a part of
   the file mapping on disk.  The server MAY free these blocks while
   processing the SETATTR request.  If so, the server MUST recall any
   layouts from pNFS clients which refer to the blocks before processing
   the truncate.  If the server does not free the INVALID_DATA blocks
   while processing the SETATTR request, it need not recall layouts
   which refer only to the INVALID DATA blocks.





Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   When a file is extended implicitly by a WRITE or LAYOUTCOMMIT beyond
   the current end-of-file, or extended explicitly by a SETATTR request,
   the server need not recall any portions of any pNFS layouts.

2.3. Volume Identification

   Storage Systems such as storage arrays can have multiple physical
   network ports that need not be connected to a common network,
   resulting in a pNFS client having simultaneous multipath access to
   the same storage volumes via different ports on different networks.
   The networks may not even be the same technology - for example,
   access to the same volume via both iSCSI and Fibre Channel is
   possible, hence network address are difficult to use for volume
   identification.  For this reason, this pNFS block layout identifies
   storage volumes by content, for example providing the means to match
   (unique portions of) labels used by volume managers.  Any block pNFS
   system using this layout MUST support a means of content-based unique
   volume identification that can be employed via the data structure
   given here.

   struct sigComponent {         /*  disk signature component */

      offset4  sig_offset;       /* byte offset of component */

      length4  sig_length;       /* byte length of component */

      opaque contents<>;      /* contents of this component of the
                                 signature (this is opaque) */

   };



   enum pnfs_block_volume_type {

      VOLUME_SIMPLE = 0,      /* volume maps to a single LU */

      VOLUME_SLICE = 1,       /* volume is a slice of another volume */

      VOLUME_CONCAT = 2,      /* volume is a concatenation of multiple
                                 volumes */

      VOLUME_STRIPE = 3,      /* volume is striped across multiple
                                 volumes */

   };



Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006




   struct pnfs_block_slice_volume_info {

      offset4          start;   /* block-offset of the start of the
                                    slice */

      length4          length;  /* length of slice in blocks */

      pnfs_deviceid4   volume;  /* volume which is sliced */

   };



   struct pnfs_block_concat_volume_info {

      pnfs_deviceid4    volumes<>;  /* volumes which are concatenated */

   };



   struct pnfs_block_stripe_volume_info {

      length4           stripe_unit;   /* size of stripe */

      pnfs_deviceid4    volumes<>;     /* volumes which are striped
                                         across*/

   };

   union pnfs_block_deviceaddr4 switch (pnfs_block_volume_type type) {

         case VOLUME_SIMPLE:

               sigComponent ds<MAX_SIG_COMP>;   /* disk signature */

         case VOLUME_SLICE:

               pnfs_block_slice_volume_info slice_info;

         case VOLUME_CONCAT:

               pnfs_block_concat_volume_info concat_info;

         case VOLUME_STRIPE:


Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


               pnfs_block_stripe_volume_info stripe_info;

         default:

               void;

   };

   The "pnfs_block_deviceaddr4" union is a recursive structure that
   allows arbitrarily complex nested volume structures to be encoded.
   The types of aggregations that are allowed are stripes,
   concatenations, and slices.  The base case is a volume which maps
   simply to one logical unit in the SAN, identified by the
   "sigComponent" structure.  Each SAN logical unit is content-
   identified by a disk signature made up of extents within blocks and
   contents that must match.  The "pnfs_block_deviceaddr4" union is
   returned by the server as the storage-protocol-specific opaque field
   in the "pnfs_deviceaddr4" structure, in response to the GETDEVICEINFO
   or GETDEVICELIST operations.  Note that the opaque "contents" field
   in the "sigComponent" structure MUST NOT be interpreted as a zero-
   terminated string, as it may contain embedded zero-valued octets.  It
   contains exactly sig_length octets.  There are no restrictions on
   alignment (e.g., neither sig_offset nor sig_length are required to be
   multiples of 4).

2.4. Crash Recovery Issues

   When the server crashes while the client holds a writable layout, and
   the client has written data to blocks covered by the layout, and the
   blocks are still in the INVALID_DATA state, the client has two
   options for recovery.  If the data that has been written to these
   blocks is still cached by the client, the client can simply re-write
   the data via NFSv4, once the server has come back online.  However,
   if the data is no longer in the client's cache, the client MUST NOT
   attempt to source the data from the data servers.  Instead, it should
   attempt to commit the blocks in question to the server during the
   server's recovery grace period, by sending a LAYOUTCOMMIT with the
   "reclaim" flag set to true. This process is described in detail in
   [NFSv4.1] section 21.42.4.

3. Security Considerations

   Typically, SAN disk arrays and SAN protocols provide access control
   mechanisms (access-logics, lun masking, etc.) which operate at the
   granularity of individual hosts.  The functionality provided by such
   mechanisms makes it possible for the server to "fence" individual
   client machines from certain physical disks---that is to say, to


Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   prevent individual client machines from reading or writing to certain
   physical disks.  Finer-grained access control methods are not
   generally available.  For this reason, certain security
   responsibilities are delegated to pNFS clients for block/volume
   layouts.  Block/volume storage systems generally control access at a
   volume granularity, and hence pNFS clients have to be trusted to only
   perform accesses allowed by the layout extents they currently hold
   (e.g., and not access storage for files on which a layout extent is
   not held).  In general, the server will not be able to prevent a
   client which holds a layout for a file from accessing parts of the
   physical disk not covered by the layout.  Similarly, the server will
   not be able to prevent a client from accessing blocks covered by a
   layout that it has already returned.  This block-based level of
   protection must be provided by the client software.

   An alternative method of block/volume protocol use is for the storage
   devices to export virtualized block addresses, which do reflect the
   files to which blocks belong.  These virtual block addresses are
   exported to pNFS clients via layouts.  This allows the storage device
   to make appropriate access checks, while mapping virtual block
   addresses to physical block addresses.  In environments where the
   security requirements are such that client-side protection from
   access to storage outside of the layout is not sufficient pNFS
   block/volume storage layouts for pNFS SHOULD NOT be used, unless the
   storage device is able to implement the appropriate access checks,
   via use of virtualized block addresses, or other means.

   This also has implications for some NFSv4 functionality outside pNFS.
   For instance, if a file is covered by a mandatory read-only lock, the
   server can ensure that only readable layouts for the file are granted
   to pNFS clients.  However, it is up to each pNFS client to ensure
   that the readable layout is used only to service read requests, and
   not to allow writes to the existing parts of the file.  Since
   block/volume storage systems are generally not capable of enforcing
   such file-based security, in environments where pNFS clients cannot
   be trusted to enforce such policies, pNFS block/volume storage
   layouts SHOULD NOT be used.

   Access to block/volume storage is logically at a lower layer of the
   I/O stack than NFSv4, and hence NFSv4 security is not directly
   applicable to protocols that access such storage directly.  Depending
   on the protocol, some of the security mechanisms provided by NFSv4
   (e.g., encryption, cryptographic integrity) may not be available, or
   may be provided via different means.  At one extreme, pNFS with
   block/volume storage can be used with storage access protocols (e.g.,
   parallel SCSI) that provide essentially no security functionality.
   At the other extreme, pNFS may be used with storage protocols such as


Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   iSCSI that provide significant functionality.  It is the
   responsibility of those administering and deploying pNFS with a
   block/volume storage access protocol to ensure that appropriate
   protection is provided to that protocol (physical security is a
   common means for protocols not based on IP).  In environments where
   the security requirements for the storage protocol cannot be met,
   pNFS block/volume storage layouts SHOULD NOT be used.

   When security is available for a storage protocol, it is generally at
   a different granularity and with a different notion of identity than
   NFSv4 (e.g., NFSv4 controls user access to files, iSCSI controls
   initiator access to volumes).  The responsibility for enforcing
   appropriate correspondences between these security layers is placed
   upon the pNFS client.  As with the issues in the first paragraph of
   this section, in environments where the security requirements are
   such that client-side protection from access to storage outside of
   the layout is not sufficient, pNFS block/volume storage layouts
   SHOULD NOT be used.

4. Conclusions

   This draft specifies the block/volume layout type for pNFS and
   associated functionality.

5. IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations in this document.  All pNFS IANA
   Considerations are covered in [NFSV4.1].

6. Revision History

   -00: Initial Version as draft-black-pnfs-block-00

   -01: Rework discussion of extents as locks to talk about extents
   granting access permissions.  Rewrite operation ordering section to
   discuss deadlocks and races that can cause problems.  Add new section
   on recall completion.  Add client copy-on-write based on text from
   Craig Everhart.

   -02: Fix glitches in extent state descriptions.  Describe most issues
   as RESOLVED.  Most of Section 3 has been incorporated into the the
   main PNFD draft, add NOTE to that effect and say that it will be
   deleted in the next version of this draft (which should be a draft-
   ietf-nfsv4 draft).  Cleaning up a number of things have been left to
   that draft revision, including the interlocks with the types in the
   main pNFS draft, layout striping support, and finishing the Security
   Considerations section.


Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   -00: New version as draft-ietf-nfsv4-pnfs-block.  Removed resolved
   operations issues (Section 3).  Align types with main pNFS draft
   (which is now part of the NFSv4.1 minor version draft), add volume
   striping and slicing support.  New operations issues are in Section 3
   - the need for a "reclaim bit" and EOF concerns are the two major
   issues.  Extended and improved the Security Considerations section,
   but it still needs work.  Added 1-sentence conclusion that also still
   needs work.

   -01: Changed definition of pnfs_block_deviceaddr4 union to allow more
   concise representation of aggregated volume structures.  Fixed typos
   to make both pnfs_block_layoutupdate and pnfs_block_layoutreturn
   structures contain extent lists instead of a single extent.  Updated
   section 2.1.6 to remove references to CB_SIZECHANGED. Moved
   description of recovery from "Issues" section to "Block Layout
   Description" section. Removed section 3.2 "End-of-file handling
   issues".  Merged old "block/volume layout security considerations"
   section from previous version of [NFSv4.1] with section 4.  Moved
   paragraph on lingering writes to the section which describes layout
   return.  Removed Issues section (3) as the remaining issues are all
   resolved.

7. Acknowledgments

   This draft draws extensively on the authors' familiarity with the
   mapping functionality and protocol in EMC's HighRoad system
   [HighRoad].  The protocol used by HighRoad is called FMP (File
   Mapping Protocol); it is an add-on protocol that runs in parallel
   with filesystem protocols such as NFSv3 to provide pNFS-like
   functionality for block/volume storage.  While drawing on HighRoad
   FMP, the data structures and functional considerations in this draft
   differ in significant ways, based on lessons learned and the
   opportunity to take advantage of NFSv4 features such as COMPOUND
   operations.  The design to support pNFS client participation in copy-
   on-write is based on text and ideas contributed by Craig Everhart
   (formerly with IBM).

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [NFSV4.1] Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and Noveck, D. ed., "NFSv4 Minor
             Version 1", draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion1-06.txt, Internet
             Draft, August 2006.


Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


8.2. Informative References

   [HighRoad] EMC Corporation, "EMC Celerra HighRoad", EMC C819.1 white
              paper, available at:
   http://www.emc.com/pdf/products/celerra_file_server/HighRoad_wp.pdf
              link checked 29 August 2006.

Author's Addresses

   David L. Black
   EMC Corporation
   176 South Street
   Hopkinton, MA 01748

   Phone: +1 (508) 293-7953
   Email: black_david@emc.com


   Stephen Fridella
   EMC Corporation
   32 Coslin Drive
   Southboro, MA  01772

   Phone: +1 (508) 305-8512
   Email: fridella_stephen@emc.com


Intellectual Property Statement

   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


Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         pNFS Block/Volume Layout             August 2006


   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.

Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   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.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.























Black                   Expires February 2007                 [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/