linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:39:42 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	lmb@...e.de
Cc:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	neilb@...e.de, hch@...radead.org, James.Bottomley@...e.de,
	lars.ellenberg@...bit.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	bart.vanassche@...il.com, davej@...hat.com, gregkh@...e.de,
	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, kyle@...fetthome.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, nab@...ux-iscsi.org,
	knikanth@...e.de, philipp.reisner@...bit.com, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DRBD for 2.6.32

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:02:32 +0200
Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@...e.de> wrote:

> On 2009-09-19T14:14:30, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > I guess that Christoph is worry about adding another user interface
> > for kinda device management; once we merge this, we can't fix it (for
> > the raid unification).
> 
> Why can't it be fixed?
> 
> Either
> 
> a) there's going to be a transition period during which the "old"
> interface is supported but depreciated and scheduled to be removed (all
> driving the new unified same back-end),

We should avoid removing the existing interface. Once we merge drbd, I
don't think that it's a good idea to remove the drbd user interface.


> or b) there's going to be a new kernel which requires new user-space
> tools sharp.
> 
> In either case, dm/md are affected by this, so a third interface doesn't
> really make much difference. The refactoring needs to happen in the
> back-end anyway, and that actually becomes easier when all concurrent
> implementations are present and can be reworked at the same time.

I don't think so. It's much easier to implement something that
supports fewer user interfaces.


> > BTW, DM already has something like drbd? I thought that there is a
> > talk about that new target at LinuxCon.
> 
> dm-replicator is nowhere near as usable as DRBD, and not upstream yet

I don't think usability at this point is important. The design
matters. dm-replicator is built on the existing framework.

And my question is, if drbd and dm-replicator will provide similar
features, then why do we need both in mainline?


> either. (Further, it's another independent implementation, pursued
> instead of unifying any of the existing ones or helping to merge drbd -
> don't get me started on my thoughts of that.)

Again, dm-replicator is built on the existing framework instead of
adding another 'multiple (virtual) devices' framework into mainline.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/