Returning back to this, since block based storage, which can act as a
shared storage/transport layer, is ready with 5'th release of the DST.
My couple of notes on proposed data distribution algorithm in FS.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:07:11AM -0400, Kyle Moffett ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >I ac
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:24:46AM -0600, Andreas Dilger ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > When Chris Mason announced btrfs, I found that quite a few new ideas
> > are already implemented there, so I postponed project (although
> > direction of the developement of the btrfs seems to move to the zfs
On Sep 15, 2007, at 13:24:46, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Sep 15, 2007 16:29 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Yes, block device itself is not able to scale well, but it is the
place for redundancy, since filesystem will just fail if
underlying device does not work correctly and FS actually does n
On Sep 15, 2007 12:20 -0400, Robin Humble wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 10:35:16AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >Lustre is tilted far too much towards high-priced storage,
>
> many (most?) Lustre deployments are with SATA and md raid5 and GigE -
> can't get much cheaper than that.
I have to ag
On Sep 15, 2007 16:29 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Yes, block device itself is not able to scale well, but it is the place
> for redundancy, since filesystem will just fail if underlying device
> does not work correctly and FS actually does not know about where it
> should place redundancy bit
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 10:35:16AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>Robin Humble wrote:
>>On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write a
>>>POSIX-only distributed filesystem.
>>it's called Lustre.
>>works well, sca
Robin Humble wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
It is my hope that you will put your skills towards a distributed
filesystem :) Of the current solutions, GFS (currently in kernel)
scales poorly, and NFS v4.1 is amazingly bloated and overly complex.
I've been
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>It is my hope that you will put your skills towards a distributed
>filesystem :) Of the current solutions, GFS (currently in kernel)
>scales poorly, and NFS v4.1 is amazingly bloated and overly complex.
>
>I've been waiting for years
Hi Mike.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:54:56PM -0400, Mike Snitzer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> This distributed storage is very much needed; even if it were to act
> as a more capable/performant replacement for NBD (or MD+NBD) in the
> near term. Many high availability applications don't _need_ al
Hi Jeff.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >Further TODO list includes:
> >* implement optional saving of mirroring/linear information on the remote
> > nodes (simple)
> >* new redundancy algorithm (complex)
> >* some thoughts about distributed
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:08:42AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> No, servers are required to support ordinary nfs operations to the
>> metadata server.
>> At least, that's the way it was last I heard, which was a while ago. I
>> agree that it'd stink (for any number of reas
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:32:11PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:14:53PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
NFSv4.1 adds to the fun, by throwing interoperability completely out the
window.
What parts are you worried about in partic
On 9/14/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm pleased to announce fourth release of the distributed storage
> > subsystem, which allows to form a storage on top of remote and local
> > nodes, which in turn can be exported to another storage as a no
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:32:11PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:14:53PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> I've been waiting for years for a smart person to
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:14:53PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write a
POSIX-only distributed filesystem.
What exactly do y
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:14:53PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write a
>>> POSIX-only distributed filesystem.
>
>> What exactly do you mean by
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write a
POSIX-only distributed filesystem.
What exactly do you mean by "POSIX-only"?
Don't bother supporting attributes, file modes, and other
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> My thoughts. But first a disclaimer: Perhaps you will recall me as one
> of the people who really reads all your patches, and examines your code and
> proposals closely. So, with that in mind...
>
> I question the value of distrib
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm pleased to announce fourth release of the distributed storage
> > subsystem, which allows to form a storage on top of remote and local
> > nodes, which in turn can be exported to another storage as a node to
> > form tree-like storage
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Hi.
I'm pleased to announce fourth release of the distributed storage
subsystem, which allows to form a storage on top of remote and local
nodes, which in turn can be exported to another storage as a node to
form tree-like storages.
This release includes new configuratio
20 matches
Mail list logo
