Joerg Schilling,
Stepping back into the tech discussion.
If we want a port of ZFS to Linux to begin, SHOULD the kitchen
sink approach be abandoned for the 1.0 release?? For later
releases, dropped functionality could be added in.
Suggested 1.0 Requirements
--------------------------
1) No NFS export support
2) Basic local FS support (all Vnodeops and VFS op review)
3) Identify any FSs (source availability) that are common
between Linux and SunOS and use those as porting guides
4)Identify all Sun DDI/DKI calls that have no Linux equivs
5)Identify what ZFS apps need supporting
6)Identify any/all library's that are needed for the ZFS apps
7)Identify and acquire as many ZFS validation tests as possible.
8) Can we/should we assume that the Sun ZFS docs will suffice
as main reference and identify any and all diffs using a
suplimentary doc.
9) Create a one pager on the mmap() diffs.
10) Identify whether lookuppathname should be ported over to
Linux, and whether "ships-in-the-night" approach would
cause more problems.
Mitchell Erblich
Sr Software Engineer
---------------------
Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> Erblichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joerg Shilling,
> >
> > Putting the license issues aside for a moment.
>
> I was trying to point people to the fact that the biggest problems are
> technical problems and that the license discussion was done the wrong way.
>
> > If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS within Linux, should
> > a small Linux group be formed to break down ZFS in
> > easily portable sections and non-portable sections.
> > And get a real-time/effort assessment as to what is
> > needed to get it done.
>
> Going back to the tecnical stuff:
>
> - The NFS export interface from Linux is weird and needs
> adoptation
>
> - Linux still has the outdated "namei" inteface instead of
> the more than 20 year old lookuppathname() interface
> from SunOS.
>
> - The mmap interface is extremely different
>
> In general, the problem on Linux is that the Linux "vfs"
> interface is a low level inteface, so it is most likely easier
> to adopt a Linux FS to the Solaris vfs interface than vice versa.
>
> There is nothing like the clean global vfsops and vnodeops on Solaris
> but a lot of small interfaces.
>
> > Assuming their is interest and usage, if ported, I
> > would assume that someone/some group would make sure
> > that the code is resynced on a periodic basis.
>
> I also asume that the same people who are interested in a port
> will do the maintenance...
>
> > I know a FS from Veritas and SGI were reviewed in
> > these manners. The Veritas's FS originally was
> > developed using the Sun's VFS layer.
> >
> > So, if the license issues are removed, I am sure
> > that ZFS could be ported over to Linux. It is just
> > time and effort...
>
> I am sure it could be done but Linux peole cannot asume that
> Sun will do it ;-)
>
> Jörg
>
> --
> EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
> URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
