On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:32:11PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:14:53PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>>> I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write >>>>> a POSIX-only distributed filesystem. >>>> What exactly do you mean by "POSIX-only"? >>> Don't bother supporting attributes, file modes, and other details not >>> supported by POSIX. The prime example being NFSv4, which is larded down >>> with Windows features. >> I am sympathetic.... Cutting those out may still leave you with >> something pretty complicated, though. > > Far less complicated than NFSv4.1 though (which is easy :)) One would hope so. >>> NFSv4.1 adds to the fun, by throwing interoperability completely out the >>> window. >> What parts are you worried about in particular? > > I'm not worried; I'm stating facts as they exist today (draft 13): > > NFS v4.1 does something completely without precedent in the history of NFS: > the specification is defined such that interoperability is -impossible- to > guarantee. > > pNFS permits private and unspecified layout types. This means it is > impossible to guarantee that one NFSv4.1 implementation will be able to > talk another NFSv4.1 implementation. No, servers are required to support ordinary nfs operations to the metadata server. At least, that's the way it was last I heard, which was a while ago. I agree that it'd stink (for any number of reasons) if you ever *had* to get a layout to access some file. Was that your main concern? --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
