On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:12:24AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >>>Which in-tree or soon in-tree filesystem do you care about? And why > >>>don't we see pnfs support for it submitted instead of the fairly useless > >>>gfs2 support? > >I picked gfs2 as the initial use case for simplicity and ease of review. > >If there is a rough consensus that it's useless and not worthy of inclusion > >then the one we care about the most is exofs that has a more complete pnfs > >implementation. > > > >Benny > > > > I don't see having GFS2 supported as a base for pNFS as useless. > Christoph, is this a concern about GFS2 being too complicated for > normal deployment or a lack in the pNFS support on top of it? Fairly useless was specific to the particular implementation: - which in the stipped down version here only supports DS access for reads - which in the previous version showed worse performance than always going through the MDS I don't have a problem with using GFS2 by itself, but any implementation proposed should actually show signifiant real life benefits before it gets merged. -- 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
