> However, part of the benefit of the NaCl-based Flexible Placement design is that > administrators can put in all sorts of weird things we've never thought of. > If we are to redesign some of our abstractions to support > it and other goals we want (which I think we must), it seems a shame > not to make them as flexible as we reasonably can You suggests awful things. People fears flexibility. Ceph policies are really already flexible. Those couple of people that wish "super flexibility" are able to fork Ceph and implement their needs. Until several people explicitly asked for "super-puper" flexibility, that cannot be described with Crush, there is no need to do this "flexibility". It is better focus effort on pushing down memory consumption, especially during recovery. It is much more desired feature. -- 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
