Paul Clements wrote:
Well, if people would like to see a timeout option, I actually coded up
a patch a couple of years ago to do just that, but I never got it into
mainline because you can do almost as well by doing a check at
user-level (I basically ping the nbd connection periodically and if
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, David Greaves wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
per the message below MD (or DM) would need to be modified to work
reasonably well with one of the disk components being over an unreliable
link (like a network link)
are the MD/DM maintainers interested in extending their
On Aug 12 2007 20:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
per the message below MD (or DM) would need to be modified to work
reasonably well with one of the disk components being over an
unreliable link (like a network link)
Does not dm-multipath do something like that?
are the MD/DM maintainers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would this just be relevant to network devices or would it improve
support for jostled usb and sata hot-plugging I wonder?
good question, I suspect that some of the error handling would be
similar (for devices that are unreachable not haning the system for
example),
Lars Ellenberg wrote:
meanwhile, please, anyone interessted,
the drbd paper for LinuxConf Eu 2007 is finalized.
http://www.drbd.org/fileadmin/drbd/publications/
drbd8.linux-conf.eu.2007.pdf
it does not give too much implementation detail (would be inapropriate
for conference proceedings,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:35:17PM +0300, Al Boldi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Lars Ellenberg wrote:
meanwhile, please, anyone interessted,
the drbd paper for LinuxConf Eu 2007 is finalized.
http://www.drbd.org/fileadmin/drbd/publications/
drbd8.linux-conf.eu.2007.pdf
it does not give
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Al Boldi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Look at ZFS; it illegally violates layering by combining md/dm/lvm with
the fs, but it does this based on a realistic understanding of the
problems involved, which enables it to improve performance, flexibility,
and functionality
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Aug 12 2007 13:35, Al Boldi wrote:
Lars Ellenberg wrote:
meanwhile, please, anyone interessted,
the drbd paper for LinuxConf Eu 2007 is finalized.
http://www.drbd.org/fileadmin/drbd/publications/
drbd8.linux-conf.eu.2007.pdf
but it does give a
On Aug 12 2007 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
now, I am not an expert on either option, but three are a couple things that I
would question about the DRDB+MD option
1. when the remote machine is down, how does MD deal with it for reads and
writes?
I suppose it kicks the drive and you'd
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 07:03:44PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Aug 12 2007 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
now, I am not an expert on either option, but three are a couple things
that I
would question about the DRDB+MD option
1. when the remote machine is down, how does MD deal
Iustin Pop wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 07:03:44PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Aug 12 2007 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
now, I am not an expert on either option, but three are a couple things that I
would question about the DRDB+MD option
1. when the remote machine is down, how does
per the message below MD (or DM) would need to be modified to work
reasonably well with one of the disk components being over an unreliable
link (like a network link)
are the MD/DM maintainers interested in extending their code in this
direction? or would they prefer to keep it simpler by
12 matches
Mail list logo
