On 10/03/2013 09:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
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.
Makes sense, thanks!
Ric
--
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
