Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:48165 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753933Ab3JCMhK (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:37:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:37:07 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Benny Halevy Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v0 05/49] pnfsd: introduce pnfsd header files Message-ID: <20131003123707.GA16120@infradead.org> References: <20130929121345.GA21083@infradead.org> <52481B11.2080407@primarydata.com> <20130929122130.GI21083@infradead.org> <20130929123553.GA7510@infradead.org> <20131001203047.GH16245@pad.fieldses.org> <524C0556.9070705@primarydata.com> <20131002160759.GB27988@infradead.org> <524D0873.40602@primarydata.com> <20131003095511.GA30147@infradead.org> <524D6312.7020709@primarydata.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <524D6312.7020709@primarydata.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 03:29:06PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: > 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. This was in reference to file layout implementation details, so exofs isn't a contender there. As far as exofs is concerned a pnfs implementation based on it has just as much toy status as the current gfs2 one. While the pnfs side of it might as well be a lot better, a filesystem that lacks all the integrity and scalability features developed in the last 30 years can't be considered more than a proof of concept.