:Hey Matt,
:Thanks for your answers, but i have one more question for you. Will the
:new file system be capable of ACLs?
:
:Cheers,
:Petr
It will be capable of storing meta-data records for certain, so yes.
However, the OS needs an ACL implementation to use the meta-data store
the
On 2/19/07, Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been letting the conversation run to see what people have to say,
I am going to select this posting by Brett to answer, as well as
provide some more information.
:I am not sure I understand the potential aim of the new file
B. Estrade wrote:
On 2/19/07, Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[complete quote of matt's mail]
Thanks for that, Matt.
could people please try to follow common netiquette standards, especially
trimming extensive quotes and avoid top posting (obviously didn't happen in
this case).
As in the design spec. It works on paper. I haven't started coding
anything yet.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey Matt,
Thanks for your answers, but i have one more question for you. Will the
new file system be capable of ACLs?
Robert Luciani wrote:
*snip* (clustering discussion..)
Jokingly: I think the notion of functional individual computers
helping each other out sounds a bit like neourons in a brain. The
technological singularity is coming, nothing can stop it!
Oddly, they *are* - but not in the way
Michel Talon wrote:
Of course it is none of my business, but i have always wandered about the
real usefulness of a clustering OS in the context of free systems, and you
post allows me to explain why. People who have the money to buy machines by
the thousands, run them, pay the electricity bill,
I've been letting the conversation run to see what people have to say,
I am going to select this posting by Brett to answer, as well as
provide some more information.
:I am not sure I understand the potential aim of the new file system -
:is it to allow all nodes on the SSI (I
:I think it's important to ask oneself these questions since it's a shame
:to waste time on something that nobody can ever appreciate. On the other
:hand, in Matt's and many other's vision clustered computing will perhaps
:be an integral part of the future, just like many cored processors will be
On Mon, February 19, 2007 5:37 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote:
I have many requirements that need to be fullfilled by the new
filesystem. I have just completed the basic design work and I feel
quite confident that I can have the basics working by our Summer
release.
How much is
Matthew Dillon wrote:
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey Matt,
1) Does your filesystem plan include the ability to grow and shrink a
partition/volume? ie. /home is running out of space so we could run
shrinkfs ... on /usr
On 2/20/07, Petr Janda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Matt,
1) Does your filesystem plan include the ability to grow and shrink a
partition/volume? ie. /home is running out of space so we could run
shrinkfs ... on /usr which has a lot of space and growfs ... on /home
2) Are you going to do away
Matthew Dillon wrote:
Believe me, I think about this all the time. I frankly have no idea
whether 'DragonFly The OS' itself will survive the test of time,
but I guarentee you that everything we develop for 'DragonFly The OS',
especially more portable entities such as
:
:On Mon, February 19, 2007 5:37 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:
: I have many requirements that need to be fullfilled by the new
: filesystem. I have just completed the basic design work and I feel
: quite confident that I can have the basics working by our Summer
: release.
:
:How
:Hey Matt,
:1) Does your filesystem plan include the ability to grow and shrink a
:partition/volume? ie. /home is running out of space so we could run
:shrinkfs ... on /usr which has a lot of space and growfs ... on /home
The filesystem's backing store will be segmented. Segment size can
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:39:30 -0500, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
Sort of. I'm saying that if Matt rolls his own filesystem instead of
using ZFS, that new filesystem is either:
1: not going to have the variety of tools available with zfs for handling
things like disk pooling/snapshots/data
Rupert Pigott wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:39:30 -0500, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
Sort of. I'm saying that if Matt rolls his own filesystem instead of
using ZFS, that new filesystem is either:
1: not going to have the variety of tools available with zfs for handling
things like disk
Rupert Pigott wrote:
I don't know if IBM's GridFS does any better with the latency, but it
certainly scales a lot better but the barrier for adoption is $$$. It
costs $$$ and it costs a lot more $$$ to train up and hire the SAs to run
it. There are other options like AFS too, but people tend to
Rupert Pigott wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:39:30 -0500, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
True, but Matt has explained that ZFS doesn't provide the functionality
that DragonFlyBSD needs for cluster computing.
ZFS solves the problem of building a bigger fileserver, but it
doesn't help you
On 2/18/07, Michel Talon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rupert Pigott wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:39:30 -0500, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
True, but Matt has explained that ZFS doesn't provide the functionality
that DragonFlyBSD needs for cluster computing.
ZFS solves the problem of building a
On 2/18/07, Michel Talon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rupert Pigott wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:39:30 -0500, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
True, but Matt has explained that ZFS doesn't provide the functionality
that DragonFlyBSD needs for cluster computing.
ZFS solves the problem of building a
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:25:57 +0100
Michel Talon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it is none of my business, but i have always wandered about the
real usefulness of a clustering OS in the context of free systems,
snip
Small installations are the natural target of free
systems, and in this
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Rupert Pigott wrote:
I don't know if IBM's GridFS does any better with the latency, but it
certainly scales a lot better but the barrier for adoption is $$$. It
costs $$$ and it costs a lot more $$$ to train up and hire the SAs to run
it. There are other options
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:23:38 +0100, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Rupert Pigott wrote:
I don't know if IBM's GridFS does any better with the latency, but it
certainly scales a lot better but the barrier for adoption is $$$. It
costs $$$ and it costs a lot more $$$ to train up and hire the
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:25:57 +0100, Michel Talon wrote:
Rupert Pigott wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:39:30 -0500, Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
True, but Matt has explained that ZFS doesn't provide the functionality
that DragonFlyBSD needs for cluster computing.
ZFS solves the problem of
Bill Hacker wrote:
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Rupert Pigott wrote:
But a brief scan of those that were 'free' brings up the question:
'Just who is it that actually NEEDS this anyway?'
Bill Hacker
Well Rupert Pigott gave some pretty convincing explanations of the
usefulness of
On 2/1/07, ricardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:35:42 -0500 (EST)
Justin C. Sherrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, January 31, 2007 3:18 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote:
I am seriously considering our options with regards to ZFS or a
ZFS-like filesystem. We
Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Besides the finalization of vkernel, what else can we expect into 2.0? There
are many long-awaited (not only by me) features and additions:
:- ZFS
I am seriously considering our options with regards to ZFS or a
ZFS-like filesystem. We clearly need something to
On Thu, February 1, 2007 3:20 am, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
That's not his point. He means that ZFS, while very good at what it
is, would not be optimal for transparent clustering. And a file system
which is designed for clustering won't necessarily be as good as ZFS
on single machines. Either
Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
It's a moot point until Matt can evaluate modifying existing filesystems
vs building a new one, though. I don't want NIH-ism to get in the way of
having something neat, though
Yah. I think porting ZFS and possibly inventing a new FS or pimping up ZFS can
run in
On 2/1/07, Simon 'corecode' Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yah. I think porting ZFS and possibly inventing a new FS or pimping up ZFS can
run in parallel and thus ZFS _should_ be done.
cheers
simon
Yes, I second that. Maybe ZFS could be improved to handle the problems
Matt listed. And
2007/1/31, Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am seriously considering our options with regards to ZFS or a
ZFS-like filesystem. We clearly need something to replace UFS,
but I am a bit worried that porting ZFS would be as much work
as simply designing a new filesystem from
Chris Csanady wrote:
very well-thought-out post in re ZFS. Thanks!
I'd only add that porting one or more 'foreign' fs in general seem to be a good
idea - it is bound to show up things not yet covered well.
In all of the published comparison tests, I have never seen a single 'always
best' fs
:Besides the finalization of vkernel, what else can we expect into 2.0? There
are many long-awaited (not only by me) features and additions:
:- ZFS
I am seriously considering our options with regards to ZFS or a
ZFS-like filesystem. We clearly need something to replace UFS,
but I
Hi Matt,
first congratulation for your 1.8 release, a solid and tremendous
progress. some questions (hopefully not too far from the scope :) ...
On 1/31/07, Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:Besides the finalization of vkernel, what else can we expect into 2.0? There
are many
On Wed, January 31, 2007 3:18 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote:
I am seriously considering our options with regards to ZFS or a
ZFS-like filesystem. We clearly need something to replace UFS,
but I am a bit worried that porting ZFS would be as much work
as simply designing a new
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:35:42 -0500 (EST)
Justin C. Sherrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, January 31, 2007 3:18 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote:
I am seriously considering our options with regards to ZFS or a
ZFS-like filesystem. We clearly need something to replace UFS,
but I
There's a huge niche that desperately needs to be filled for systems
that have huge
numbers of small files. ReiserFS went some of the way towards doing
that, but at
this point has pretty much officially flopped, and still has huge
issues, not the least
of which are Hans' personal ones. XFS
Besides the finalization of vkernel, what else can we expect into 2.0? There
are many long-awaited (not only by me) features and additions:
- ZFS
- updated installer: fixed web based installation etc.
- updated PF
- getting the network stack (and others) out of the BGL
- AMD64 port.
Note that
38 matches
Mail list logo
