netdev - Re: Distributed storage. Move away from char device ioctls.

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]

Message-ID: <20070914211210.GB12444@fieldses.org>
Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:12:10 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Distributed storage. Move away from char device ioctls.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> My thoughts.  But first a disclaimer:   Perhaps you will recall me as one 
> of the people who really reads all your patches, and examines your code and 
> proposals closely.  So, with that in mind...
>
> I question the value of distributed block services (DBS), whether its your 
> version or the others out there.  DBS are not very useful, because it still 
> relies on a useful filesystem sitting on top of the DBS.  It devolves into 
> one of two cases:  (1) multi-path much like today's SCSI, with distributed 
> filesystem arbitrarion to ensure coherency, or (2) the filesystem running 
> on top of the DBS is on a single host, and thus, a single point of failure 
> (SPOF).
>
> It is quite logical to extend the concepts of RAID across the network, but 
> ultimately you are still bound by the inflexibility and simplicity of the 
> block device.
>
> In contrast, a distributed filesystem offers far more scalability, 
> eliminates single points of failure, and offers more room for optimization 
> and redundancy across the cluster.
>
> A distributed filesystem is also much more complex, which is why 
> distributed block devices are so appealing :)
>
> With a redundant, distributed filesystem, you simply do not need any 
> complexity at all at the block device level.  You don't even need RAID.
>
> It is my hope that you will put your skills towards a distributed 
> filesystem :)  Of the current solutions, GFS (currently in kernel) scales 
> poorly, and NFS v4.1 is amazingly bloated and overly complex.
>
> I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write a 
> POSIX-only distributed filesystem.

What exactly do you mean by "POSIX-only"?

--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html