As an extra request, it would be great if people explained a little about their use-case for the filesystem so we can better understand how the features requested map to the type of workloads people are trying.
Thanks Neil On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Greg Farnum <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a companion discussion to the blog post at > http://ceph.com/dev-notes/cephfs-mds-status-discussion/ — go read that! > > The short and slightly alternate version: I spent most of about two weeks > working on bugs related to snapshots in the MDS, and we started realizing > that we could probably do our first supported release of CephFS and the > related infrastructure much sooner if we didn't need to support all of the > whizbang features. (This isn't to say that the base feature set is stable > now, but it's much closer than when you turn on some of the other things.) > I'd like to get feedback from you in the community on what minimum supported > feature set would prompt or allow you to start using CephFS in real > environments — not what you'd *like* to see, but what you *need* to see. This > will allow us at Inktank to prioritize more effectively and hopefully get out > a supported release much more quickly! :) > > The current proposed feature set is basically what's left over after we've > trimmed off everything we can think to split off, but if any of the proposed > included features are also particularly important or don't matter, be sure to > mention them (NFS export in particular — it works right now but isn't in > great shape due to NFS filehandle caching). > > Thanks, > -Greg > > Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
