On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 16:08 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 04:00 PM, Bernd Schubert wrote:
> > pNFS, FhGFS, Lustre, Ceph, etc., all of them shall implement their own
> > interface? And userspace needs to address all of them differently?
>
> The NFS and SCSI groups have each defined a standard which Zach's proposal
> abstracts into a common user API.
>
> Distributed file systems tend to be rather unique and do not have similar
> standard bodies, but a lot of them could hide server specific implementations
> under the current proposed interfaces.
>
> What is not a good idea is to drag out the core, simple copy offload discussion
> for another 5 years to pull in every odd use case :)
Agreed. The whole idea of a common system call interface should be to
allow us to abstract away the underlying storage and filesystem
architectures. If filesystem developers also want a way to expose that
underlying architecture to applications in order to enable further
optimisations, then that belongs in a separate discussion.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
