[pnfs] Linux pNFS road map

[peter honeyman]

okie dokie.

i'm not convinced that performance through the MDS is guaranteed to be  
worse than through the data servers (i'm from missouri).  imho, the  
MDS is viable for stripe 0.

otoh, i'm not opposed to the GFS2 approach, either.  (i'm (from the  
big) easy?)

	peter

On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Marc Eshel wrote:

> I know that this what the protocol requires but why would you choose  
> to do
> i/o through the MDS when the performance is guarantied to be worst,  
> even
> for small files. I think that to make this really usable it will  
> take much
> more work and I believe that trying to extend GFS2 to support pNFS  
> is much
> better route to take. We can talk about it some more in tomorrow's  
> status
> meeting.
> Marc.
>
> pnfs-bounces at linux-nfs.org wrote on 12/12/2007 11:54:13 AM:
>
>> marc,
>>
>> the client may elect to send I/O requests to the MDS for reasons  
>> other
>> than failure, e.g., small requests.
>>
>>   peter
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Marc Eshel wrote:
>>
>>> pnfs-bounces at linux-nfs.org wrote on 12/11/2007 11:23:39 PM:
>>>
>>>> It does not use a cluster FS.
>>>>
>>>> The file system on the MDS and the DSs can be any physical fs.   
>>>> E.g.,
>>>> for our testing we've been using either ext2 or ext3 (or mixed) on
>>>> the
>>>> MDS and DSs.  It does not currently perform i/o through the MDS,
>>>> though
>>>> it would probably work to do as Bruce suggested and have the MDS
>>>> act as
>>>> a client of itself.
>>>
>>> I am not sure what that means. For the MDS to do i/o it needs to
>>> communicate with the corresponding DS for that i/o and if the client
>>> failed in doing the i/o through the DS I don't see that the MDS  
>>> will a
>>> better chance.
>>> Marc.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pNFS mailing list
>> pNFS at linux-nfs.org
>> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnfs
>