On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Noah Watkins <noah.watkins@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It seems to make sense that fiemap should be part of the `class > BackingFileSystem` abstraction? > FS_IOC_FIEMAP is a standard API, I think no need to implement it in `class BackingFileSystem`. > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> http://wiki.ceph.com/01Planning/02Blueprints/Emperor/osd:_ceph_on_zfs >> >> We've done some preliminary testing and xattr debugging that allows >> ceph-osd to run on zfsforlinux using the normal writeahead journaling mode >> (the same mode used for xfs and ext4). However, we aren't doing anything >> special to take advantage of zfs's capabilities. >> >> This session would go over what is needed to make parallel journaling work >> (which would leverage zfs snapshots). I would also like to have a >> discussion about whether other longer-term possibilities, such as storing >> objects directly using the DMU, make sense given what ceph-osd's >> ObjectStore interface really needs. It might also be an appropriate time >> to visit whether other snapshotting linux filesystems (like nilfs2) would >> fit well into any generalization of the filestore code that comes out of >> this effort. >> >> If anybody is interested in this, please add yourself to the interested >> parties section (or claim ownership) of this blueprint! >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -- > 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 -- 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
