----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Olga Kornievskaia" <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Olga Kornievskaia" <kolga@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > "linux-nfs" <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:39:03 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [RFC] 64bit copy_file_range system call > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 02:34:58PM -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: >> Yes NFS community does need one for doing a server-to-server copy >> (performance) feature. > > s/NFS community/NetApp/ As being probably the first person who have raised the need in server-to-server copy in NFS (see slide 15 http://nfsv4bat.org/Documents/ConnectAThon/2008/managedstorage.pdf), let me disagree with you. Having end-user hat on me I can say, that over a decade we are moving scientific data around the world with server-side-copy, or 3rd-party copy as we call it. While we more-and-more use NFS (pNFS) for data access, we always need a second protocol, like FTP or WebDAV, to perform efficient data movement. I am not deep in kernel internals, but there must be a very good reason to block such functionality in NFS. Such functionality will drastically simplify our workflow. And I am sure, we are not the only users of it. Tigran. > -- > 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 -- 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
