Hi, On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:26:09 +0100, Leon Weber wrote: > On 08.03.2009 14:39:16, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > > I've moved the replication feature to the top of todo list in our web > > site ;) > > Is replication really a feature that a file system should implement? I > think it should be implemented one layer below the fs. If one needs a > replicated file system, there are things like drbd (distributed > replicated block device).
Yes, DRBD is another solution. I'm actually thinking it a possible measure though we haven't yet evaluate for nilfs. But as you know the granularity differs from that of the checkpoint based solution. Unless the checkpoint based solution doesn't have any merit, I think the solution to be chosen depends on customer's (users') demand and so-called service level. Anyway you have a good point. I should care not only rsync but also drbd and other block layer solutions, and must find merits definitely. > Of course, the file system should support being > on a replicated device, though I don't really see a need to implement > this on the fs layer, or am I missing anything? > > Leon In general, filesystems are said to have better opportunity to utilize the knowledge for their metadata structures and consistency especially for copy-on-write filesystems. Those can efficiently extract delta by nature, and can drop intermediate changes depending on required granularity. Will it true with nilfs? - I don't know yet, but I think it's one of the feature being worth of consideration. Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
