On Dec 21, 2007 8:29 PM, Chris Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me, the proposal is not clear in regard to the intended scope, or in
> its relationship to existing Solaris device management facilities.
Chris,
Frankly speaking it is not clear to me either. That is why I said
investigating is one of the goals. And that is why I want it to be
a project endorsed by storage community. I am sufficiently motivated
to work on this by myself, with zero visibility to os.org. However,
I do not think it is a right thing to do. I want other people to be able
to participate at the earliest stage possible. (Contrary to recent
example of projects endorsed after integration into ON).
> I understand wanting new file system support for *basic* media, but the
> need to support *amalgamated* media (implemented via Device_Mapper and
> LVM2) seems of lower priority.
This project is not related to file system, at least not directly. I see
no reason to serialize them. And for what it worth, I do not agree
that your prioritisation ("basic" vs. "amalgamated") is correct.
Chances that you'll see mostly "amalgamated" ext3 volumes
in the real world when dual boot with Solaris will be considered.
> In terms of scope, is the proposal to make "Device_Mapper" a core
> Solaris concept, or is it just there as a shim below the Linux file
> system code?
I tend to think it is closer to be a core than to be a shim,
but it is rather hard to say right now.
> The broader the intended scope of this proposal, the more concern I
> have. I wonder if we would be best served by deferring support for
> amalgamated media, concentrateing on file systems mapping to basic
> media.
Once again. It is not about file systems, it is about device mapper.
--
Regards,
Cyril
_______________________________________________
storage-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
