On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 19:03 +0100, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote: > 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. > > Yes. Well, no, we have one in and one out. > Plus it removes the 3 site limitation (2048 technical limit) and offers > consistent multi-device replication. md/nbd has no such limit ... drbd might. James -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
