On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:54:02 PST, Sage Weil said: > > I would still like to see ceph merged for 2.6.33. It's certainly not > > production ready, but it would be greatly beneficial to be in mainline for > > the same reasons other file systems like btrfs and exofs were merged > > early. > > Is the on-the-wire protocol believed to be correct, complete, and stable? How > about any userspace APIs and on-disk formats? In other words.. > > > > The git tree includes the full patchset posted in October and incremental > > > changes since then. I've tried to cram in all the anticipated protocol > > > changes, but the file system is still strictly EXPERIMENTAL and is marked > > Anything left dangling on the changes? The wire protocol is close. There is a corner cases with MDS failure recovery that need attention, but it can be resolved in a backward compatible way. I think a compat/incompat flags mechanism during the initial handshake might be appropriate to make changes easier going forward. I don't anticipate any other changes there. There are some as-yet unresolved interface and performance issues with the way the storage nodes interact with btrfs that have on disk format implications. I hope to resolve those shortly. Those of course do not impact the client code. sage -- 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
