As an extra request, it would be great if people explained a little about their use-case for the filesystem so we can better understand how the features requested map to the type of workloads people are trying. Thanks Neil On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Greg Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is a companion discussion to the blog post at http://ceph.com/dev-notes/cephfs-mds-status-discussion/ — go read that! > > The short and slightly alternate version: I spent most of about two weeks working on bugs related to snapshots in the MDS, and we started realizing that we could probably do our first supported release of CephFS and the related infrastructure much sooner if we didn't need to support all of the whizbang features. (This isn't to say that the base feature set is stable now, but it's much closer than when you turn on some of the other things.) I'd like to get feedback from you in the community on what minimum supported feature set would prompt or allow you to start using CephFS in real environments — not what you'd *like* to see, but what you *need* to see. This will allow us at Inktank to prioritize more effectively and hopefully get out a supported release much more quickly! :) > > The current proposed feature set is basically what's left over after we've trimmed off everything we can think to split off, but if any of the proposed included features are also particularly important or don't matter, be sure to mention them (NFS export in particular — it works right now but isn't in great shape due to NFS filehandle caching). > > Thanks, > -Greg > > Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
