Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62231 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752347Ab3JCNTN (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:19:13 -0400 Message-ID: <524D6EB9.3040309@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 09:18:49 -0400 From: Ric Wheeler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig CC: Benny Halevy , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Steven Whitehouse , Bob Peterson , Abhijith Das , Andrew Price , Paul Evans Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v0 05/49] pnfsd: introduce pnfsd header files References: <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> <524D6D38.1040506@redhat.com> <20131003131750.GA23408@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20131003131750.GA23408@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/03/2013 09:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:12:24AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>>>> Which in-tree or soon in-tree filesystem do you care about? And why >>>>> don't we see pnfs support for it submitted instead of the fairly useless >>>>> gfs2 support? >>> 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. >>> >>> Benny >>> >> I don't see having GFS2 supported as a base for pNFS as useless. >> Christoph, is this a concern about GFS2 being too complicated for >> normal deployment or a lack in the pNFS support on top of it? > Fairly useless was specific to the particular implementation: > > - which in the stipped down version here only supports DS access for > reads > - which in the previous version showed worse performance than always > going through the MDS > > I don't have a problem with using GFS2 by itself, but any implementation > proposed should actually show signifiant real life benefits before it > gets merged. > Makes sense, thanks! Ric