Re: NFS alternatives (was: Re: Storage overhead on zvols)
> Hi all, > > > Am 05.12.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Rodney W. Grimes > > : > > In effect what your asking for is what NFS does, so use NFS and get > > over the fact that this is the way to get what you want. Sure you > > could implement a virt-vfs but I wonder how close the spec of that > > would be to the spec of NFS. > > I figure it should be possible to implement something simpler > than NFS that provides full local posix semantics under the > constraint that only one "client" is allowed to mount the FS > at a time. > > I see quite a few applications for something like this, specifically > in "hyperconvergent" environments. Or vagrant, of course. > > *scratching head* isn't this what Sun's "network disk" protocol provided? nd provided a 512b block device, no file system symatics at all, I believe it did allow 1 writer N readers though. Today you would use iSCSI in place of nd. -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NFS alternatives
Adam Vande More wrote: ... Like this? https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/geom-ggate.html yes, that'd be fine. if i used NFS i'd have to run lockd. -- P Vixie ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NFS alternatives (was: Re: Storage overhead on zvols)
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > Hi all, > > > Am 05.12.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Rodney W. Grimes < > freebsd-...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>: > > In effect what your asking for is what NFS does, so use NFS and get > > over the fact that this is the way to get what you want. Sure you > > could implement a virt-vfs but I wonder how close the spec of that > > would be to the spec of NFS. > > I figure it should be possible to implement something simpler > than NFS that provides full local posix semantics under the > constraint that only one "client" is allowed to mount the FS > at a time. > > I see quite a few applications for something like this, specifically > in "hyperconvergent" environments. Or vagrant, of course. > > *scratching head* isn't this what Sun's "network disk" protocol provided? > > Kind regards, > Patrick Like this? https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/geom-ggate.html -- Adam ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NFS alternatives (was: Re: Storage overhead on zvols)
On December 6, 2017 5:45:47 PM GMT+09:00, "Patrick M. Hausen" wrote: >Hi all, > >I see quite a few applications for something like this, specifically >in "hyperconvergent" environments. Or vagrant, of course. +1. >*scratching head* isn't this what Sun's "network disk" protocol >provided? No. Nd was like iscsi. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
