On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 02:47:37PM -0800, Frank Batschulat wrote:
> Hey Ed, addition to my previous posting as I just noticed something I've
> totally
> forgotten about
>
> > afaik, determining the mount point should be pretty
> > strait forward. i was planning to get a list of all the shares
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 09:12:33AM -0800, Frank Batschulat wrote:
> Hey Ed, I want to comment on the NFS aspects involed here,
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> >
> >well, it all depends on what nfs shares are actually being exported.
>
> I definitively think we do wan
Hey Ed, addition to my previous posting as I just noticed something I've totally
forgotten about
> afaik, determining the mount point should be pretty
> strait forward. i was planning to get a list of all the shares
> exported by the specified nfs server, and then do a strncmp() of all the
> e
Hey Ed, I want to comment on the NFS aspects involed here,
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
>
>well, it all depends on what nfs shares are actually being exported.
I definitively think we do want to abstain from that much programmatic
attempts inside the Zones framework
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:23:21AM -0700, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> if we only support vdisks created via vdiskadm(1m), then we'll always
> have a directory and we can always use vdiskadm(1m) to sniff out if it's
> a valid vdisk and access it as such.
>
> then for the implicit creation case we'l
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 04:25:30PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:33:11PM -0700, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
>
> > there by implying that the vdisk path is a directory. ok. that's easy
>
> Right.
>
> > enough to detect.
>
> It's probably safer to directly use vdiskadm to sniff
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 09:33:11PM -0700, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> there by implying that the vdisk path is a directory. ok. that's easy
Right.
> enough to detect.
It's probably safer to directly use vdiskadm to sniff the directory, if
you can.
> > At import time, it's a combination of sni
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:13:53AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:34:06PM -0700, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
>
> > thanks for taking the time to look at this and sorry for the delay in
> > replying.
>
> Compared to /my/ delay...
>
> > > That is, I think vdisks should just use pa
hey illya,
thanks for reviewing this and sorry for the delay in replying.
my comments are inline below.
i've also attached a document that contains some of the design doc
sections i've revised based of your (and john's) feedback. since the
document is large, i've only included sections that i've
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:34:06PM -0700, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> thanks for taking the time to look at this and sorry for the delay in
> replying.
Compared to /my/ delay...
> > That is, I think vdisks should just use path:/// and nfs:// not have
> > their own special schemes.
>
> this is ea
thanks for taking the time to look at this and sorry for the delay in
replying. my comments are line below.
ed
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 11:13:07PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 04:55:15PM +0800, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
>
> > File storage objects:
> >
> > path:///
> >
Hi Edward,
See comments and questions below inline:
1. Section C.0
> ... That said, nothing in this proposal should not prevent us from adding
> support for...
That "not" before "prevent" is superfluous.
2. Section C.1.i
How many instances of "rootzpool" and "zpool" resources is permitted?
IMO
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 04:55:15PM +0800, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> File storage objects:
>
> path:///
> nfs://[:port]/
>
> Vdisk storage objects:
>
> vpath:///
> vnfs://[:port]/
This makes me uncomfortable. The fact it's a vdisk is derivable except
in one case: creation. And
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 09:02:34AM +0300, Illya Kysil wrote:
> Hi Edward,
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 03:03, Edward
> Pilatowicz wrote:
> > i posted the latest version to our aliases in may after i incorporated
> > mike's feedback, but digging throught the archives i couldn't find any
> > decent rea
Hi Edward,
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 03:03, Edward
Pilatowicz wrote:
> i posted the latest version to our aliases in may after i incorporated
> mike's feedback, but digging throught the archives i couldn't find any
> decent readable copy. hence i've gone ahead and posted the latest
> version to zone
hey illya,
i posted the latest version to our aliases in may after i incorporated
mike's feedback, but digging throught the archives i couldn't find any
decent readable copy. hence i've gone ahead and posted the latest
version to zones community site here:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community
Hello Edward and Mike,
I've just discovered your thread from May 2009.
Do you have any updates on the subject?
I would like to read the latest version of the proposal.
Where can I find it?
--
Illya Kysil
--
"EASY" is the word you use to describe other people's job.
__
comments inline below.
ed
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:26:06AM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Edward Pilatowicz
> wrote:
> >
> > i've attached an updated version of the proposal (v1.1) which addresses
> > your feedback. (i've also attached a second copy of the new pro
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Edward Pilatowicz
wrote:
> hey mike,
>
> thanks for all the great feedback.
> my replies to your individual comments are inline below.
Thanks. I've responded inline where needed.
>
> i've attached an updated version of the proposal (v1.1) which addresses
> your
[ third reply, includes revised proposal + change bars from previous
version ]
hey mike,
thanks for all the great feedback.
my replies to your individual comments are inline below.
i've updated my proposal to include your feedback, but i'm unable to
attach it to this reply because of mail size
[ second reply, includes revised proposal ]
hey mike,
thanks for all the great feedback.
my replies to your individual comments are inline below.
i've updated my proposal to include your feedback, but i'm unable to
attach it to this reply because of mail size restrictions imposed by
this alias.
hey mike,
thanks for all the great feedback.
my replies to your individual comments are inline below.
i've updated my proposal to include your feedback, but i'm unable to
attach it to this reply because of mail size restrictions imposed by
this alias. i'll send some follow up emails which includ
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Edward Pilatowicz
wrote:
> hey all,
>
> i've created a proposal for my vision of how zones hosted on shared
> storage should work. if anyone is interested in this functionality then
> please give my proposal a read and let me know what you think. (fyi,
> i'm leav
hey all,
i've created a proposal for my vision of how zones hosted on shared
storage should work. if anyone is interested in this functionality then
please give my proposal a read and let me know what you think. (fyi,
i'm leaving on vacation next week so if i don't reply to comments right
away p
24 matches
Mail list logo
