linux-pnfs server implementations
Subsystems (3)
Now that the client side of pnfs is in the mainline kernel I believe it is time to consider the inclusion of the server side.
I propose the following agenda for discussion
(order may change with no advance notice :)
* What's currently available in git://linux-nfs.org/~halevy/linux-pnfs.git
- What are the sub-projects
- How they relate to each other
* High-level design of the implementation
* Summary of generic changes in nfsd
* For each of the different sub-projects, briefly present:
- What does it do
- Benefits and Potential
- Limitations
- Status
- To-do
* Prerequisites for inclusion
* Discussion
Benny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 21 lines · Benny Halevy
Now that the client side of pnfs is in the mainline kernel I believe it is time to consider the inclusion of the server side.
I propose the following agenda for discussion
(order may change with no advance notice :)* What's currently available in
git://linux-nfs.org/~halevy/linux-pnfs.git
- What are the sub-projects
- How they relate to each other* High-level design of the implementation
* Summary of generic changes in nfsd
* For each of the different sub-projects, briefly present:
- What does it do
- Benefits and Potential
- Limitations
- Status
- To-do
Quoted 4 lines
* Prerequisites for inclusion
* Discussion
Me too! This subject is close to my heart, as exofs is the most complete and advanced pNFSD base implementation. Last testing has demonstrated amazing performance and scalability. Saturating 10G from a single client and saturating 4*10G storage cluster from multiple clients.(Though there were problems with too many clients)
Quoted 1 line
Benny
Thanks
Boaz
Quoted 3 lines · Boaz Harrosh
Quoted 2 lines · Benny Halevy
Now that the client side of pnfs is in the mainline kernel I believe it is time to consider the inclusion of the server side.
We're also closing in on the basic 4.1 todo's, so I agree that it will soon be time to talk about merging server-side pNFS.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
I propose the following agenda for discussion
(order may change with no advance notice :)* What's currently available in
git://linux-nfs.org/~halevy/linux-pnfs.git
- What are the sub-projects
- How they relate to each other* High-level design of the implementation
* Summary of generic changes in nfsd
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
* For each of the different sub-projects, briefly present:
- What does it do
- Benefits and Potential
- Limitations
- Status
- To-do* Prerequisites for inclusion
Understood that it may depend on where things stand in April, but: what specifically do you think will be likely to require the attention of a wider group of linux filesystem developers (ass opposed to just nfs developers)?
--b.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 2 lines
* Discussion
Me too! This subject is close to my heart, as exofs is the most complete and advanced pNFSD base implementation. Last testing has demonstrated amazing performance and scalability. Saturating 10G from a single client and saturating 4*10G storage cluster from multiple clients.(Though there were problems with too many clients)
Quoted 26 lines · J. Bruce Fields
Quoted 3 lines · Boaz Harrosh
Quoted 2 lines · Benny Halevy
Now that the client side of pnfs is in the mainline kernel I believe it is time to consider the inclusion of the server side.
We're also closing in on the basic 4.1 todo's, so I agree that it will soon be time to talk about merging server-side pNFS.
Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 18 lines
I propose the following agenda for discussion
(order may change with no advance notice :)* What's currently available in
git://linux-nfs.org/~halevy/linux-pnfs.git
- What are the sub-projects
- How they relate to each other* High-level design of the implementation
* Summary of generic changes in nfsd
* For each of the different sub-projects, briefly present:
- What does it do
- Benefits and Potential
- Limitations
- Status
- To-do
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
* Prerequisites for inclusion
Understood that it may depend on where things stand in April, but: what specifically do you think will be likely to require the attention of a wider group of linux filesystem developers (ass opposed to just nfs developers)?
I have nothing specific at this time. My thinking was to present the what's and why's
of the prerequisites in high level and maybe provide an example.
Benny
Quoted 12 lines
--b.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 2 lines
* Discussion
Me too! This subject is close to my heart, as exofs is the most complete and advanced pNFSD base implementation. Last testing has demonstrated amazing performance and scalability. Saturating 10G from a single client and saturating 4*10G storage cluster from multiple clients.(Though there were problems with too many clients)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 10 lines · Benny Halevy
Quoted 5 lines
Understood that it may depend on where things stand in April, but: what specifically do you think will be likely to require the attention of a wider group of linux filesystem developers (ass opposed to just nfs developers)?
I have nothing specific at this time. My thinking was to present the what's and why's
of the prerequisites in high level and maybe provide an example.
At the time there where some reservations from people about some of the added hooks and vectors. If there are still, we would like to hear them and either address them or argue their validity.
I think this talk should be expanded with Jeff's suggestions. here:
Quoted 4 lines
- RichACLs
- Share/Deny mode support on open
- mandatory locking that doesn't rely on weirdo file modes
Quoted 8 lines
It's always going to be hard for us to compete with dedicated appliances. Where Linux can shine though is in allowing for more innovative combinations.
Being able to do active/active NFS serving from clustered filesystems, for instance is something that we can eventually attain but that would be harder to do in an appliance. This sort of discussion might also dovetail with Benny's proposal about pNFS serving.
So the broader topic can be:
"The things we want/need from the Kernel to make it exportable"
Thanks
Boaz
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 7 lines · Boaz Harrosh
Quoted 6 lines · Benny Halevy
Quoted 5 lines
Understood that it may depend on where things stand in April, but: what specifically do you think will be likely to require the attention of a wider group of linux filesystem developers (ass opposed to just nfs developers)?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I have nothing specific at this time. My thinking was to present the what's and why's
of the prerequisites in high level and maybe provide an example.At the time there where some reservations from people about some of the added hooks and vectors. If there are still, we would like to hear them and either address them or argue their validity.
OK.
Quoted 4 lines
I think this talk should be expanded with Jeff's suggestions. here:
Quoted 3 lines
- RichACLs
- Share/Deny mode support on open
- mandatory locking that doesn't rely on weirdo file modes
...
Quoted 2 lines
So the broader topic can be:
"The things we want/need from the Kernel to make it exportable"
Agreed that no matter where we are there will likely be a long list of thorny questions of that sort....
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html