Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:25:17 -0500
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
Cc: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@tonian.com>, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, NFS list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] [ATTEND] linux-pnfs server implementations
Message-ID: <20120109192517.GB16973@fieldses.org>
References: <4EF6A6CA.1020606@tonian.com>
 <4F0AE25C.5020706@panasas.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <4F0AE25C.5020706@panasas.com>
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 02:49:32PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 12/25/2011 06:30 AM, Benny Halevy wrote:
> > 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.

> > 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

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.

> > * 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)