On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 05:39 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 12:42:27PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > Could I just echo Lars' statement. With the upstream inclusion of drbd, > > dm-replicator becomes a *third* replication system asking to be in > > kernel. It is definitely a kernel policy question of whether we want > > three separate replicators, and so should be Cc'd to lkml so that people > > interested in that can weigh in. > > And unliley the previous two this one actually offers the benefit of > beeing integrated with our major block device management framework. md/nbd *is* integrated with a major block management framework. The fact that it's md not dm reflects the fact that it leverages the md raid1 framework to perform the replication and merely uses nbd as a remote block transmission pipe. I'd submit this is the correct way to do things. The problem now is that the md raid framework isn't integrated into dm, but I think someone else is looking at that ... > Interesting that the question comes up now after I was shot down for it > in the drbd discussion. So the value add of drbd over md/nbd is symmetric active. I think that could be pulled into the md raid infrastructure as well, but someone has to figure out how. James -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
