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 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:	Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:34:18 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Distributed storage. Move away from char device ioctls.

Hi Mike.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:54:56PM -0400, Mike Snitzer (snitzer@...il.com) wrote:
> This distributed storage is very much needed; even if it were to act
> as a more capable/performant replacement for NBD (or MD+NBD) in the
> near term.  Many high availability applications don't _need_ all the
> additional complexity of a full distributed filesystem.  So given
> that, its discouraging to see you trying to gently push Evgeniy away
> from all the promising work he has published.
> 
> Evgeniy, please continue your current work.

Thanks Mike, I work on this and will until feel it is completed.

Distributed filesystem is a logical continuation of the whoe idea of
storing data on the several remote nodes - DST and FS must exist
together for the maximum performance, but that does not mean that block
layer itself should be abandoned. As you probably noticed from my mail
to Jeff, distributed storage was originally part of the overall
filesystem design.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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