On 09/27/2013 01:19 PM, Benny Halevy wrote:> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Boaz, sorry but the files layout went first to production on the > client side in all major > enterprise distributions so it doesn't make sense to submit exofs first. > As for your patch series, I respect the work you did on it but > a. as you said it is your patch series, not mine This is not my patch series it is all of ours patch series I do not have a different one then yours. Every one did some work in his area. So I wrote the exofs part as well as lots of core parts. But we always kept one tree. Our tree > b. the forward port from 3.10 on changed the layout state handling > radically (for the better I hope :) > solving numerous correctness issues. Cool good is good, right? Do you mean that exofs would not work now. Why would it be broken? > The motivation behind the dlm based implementation is to have a > minimal useful pnfs implementation > that folks can use and test the client against. What kind of dumb test is DLM, without any write support. It is plain not pNFS it is a freak. There is nothing to test. READONLY file system, don't you see the joke in that? If this is your motivation, testing, then at least put pnfs-exp as the reference implementation for some real client testing. > On this basis, writes layout can be added, What writes layout in DLM? no hands waving please. > and further on, exofs > support can submitted as the next stage. > You are doing the work, what can I say. We have decided this before I think it was even Bruce's idea not mine. So you change that decision? For me the DLM is a joke and a bad face for the 6 years of effort I put on this thing. This is not pNFS and will do more arm then good to my cause. If you need it just for testing why do you need it in mainline? mainline is for real users and benefits no? I think I agree with Christoph Better wait for a real open-source pNFS server implementation before putting any of this in the Kernel. Just leave it out-of-tree as it is now. The only real open-source pNFS server implementation out there today that can demonstrate 10G saturation and scalability of up to 40G in the 40 nodes setup I had, is exofs. So it is the only one that can justify such a big piece added to the Kernel. Real sorry for the inconvenience of it being objects and not files. If it would matter to someone so much as it did for me then perhaps he would sit on his "thing" and implement one. But the fact is that no one cares for a files-layout open-source server. And you are off the hook this is the last I will comment on this. > Benny > Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
