Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758388AbZIQJOb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:14:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758036AbZIQJOa (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:14:30 -0400 Received: from gate.in-addr.de ([212.8.193.158]:52164 "EHLO mx.in-addr.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757331AbZIQJO3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:14:29 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1439 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:14:29 EDT Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:50:03 +0200 From: Lars Marowsky-Bree To: Christoph Hellwig , Philipp Reisner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, Lars Ellenberg Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32 Message-ID: <20090917085003.GR13069@suse.de> References: <200909151645.14256.philipp.reisner@linbit.com> <20090915231931.GB7636@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20090915231931.GB7636@infradead.org> X-Ctuhulu: HASTUR User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2362 Lines: 56 On 2009-09-15T19:19:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Hi Christoph, > > It has been discussed and reviewed on the list since March, > > and Andrew has asked us to send a pull request for 2.6.32-rc1. > > The last thing we need is another bloody raid-reimplementation, coupled > with a propritary on the wire protocol. NACK as far as I am concerned. You know that several RAID implementations are my primary pet peeve, and I would just love to agree with you here. However, reality isn't that black-xor-white. In reality, a significant number of deployments using this implementation exist already. There is no alternative for them yet, much less one which would allow them an online migration. There might be one day, if dm-replicator takes off, and the RAID engines between md/dm/btrfs/drbd/dm-replicator etc get unified, but as it stands today, this doesn't exist. drbd is stable, the code has been significantly cleaned up during the LKML dialogue so far. It is very well maintained and supported. As a mid- to long-term goal, the unification should be pursued, and I know that Lars Ellenberg _is_ talking with Heinz about dm-replicator and that Neil/Heinz/Alasdair are also occasionally talking with each other. Until this has happened though, the plurality of solutions exist. drbd meets the technical/code quality requirements for merging; the argument that we should only have one RAID implementation is valid, but "should" is overruled by the normative power of facts. Putting the burden of converging our RAID implementations on drbd is a bit too much; this argument would have made sense when dm-raid* was merged, but today, we're already carrying several. Similarly, we support FCoE, AoE, iSCSI, nbd, and if someone proposed iSCSI-over-USB, I'm sure we would merge even that abdomination. (I hope I didn't give anyone ideas!) We also have several file systems. Regards, Lars -- Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc. SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG N?rnberg) "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/