On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 02:03:09PM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Adam Litke" <a...@us.ibm.com> > > To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizr...@redhat.com> > > Cc: "Deepak C Shetty" <deepa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "engine-devel" > > <engine-de...@ovirt.org>, "VDSM Project > > Development" <vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org> > > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:49:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [vdsm] RFC: New Storage API > > > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:53:41PM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > 1) Can you provide more info on why there is a exception for 'lvm > > > > based > > > > block domain'. Its not coming out clearly. > > > File based domains are responsible for syncing up object > > > manipulation (creation\deletion) > > > The backend is responsible for making sure it all works either by > > > having a single writer (NFS) or having it's own locking mechanism > > > (gluster). > > > In our LVM based domains VDSM is responsible for basic object > > > manipulation. > > > The current design uses an approach where there is a single host > > > responsible for object creation\deleteion it is the > > > SRM\SDM\SPM\S?M. > > > If we ever find a way to make it fully clustered without a big hit > > > in performance the S?M requirement will be removed form that type > > > of domain. > > > > I would like to see us maintain a LOCALFS domain as well. For this, > > we would > > also need SRM, correct? > No, why?
Sorry, nevermind. I was thinking of a scenario with multiple clients talking to a single vdsm and making sure they don't stomp on one another. This is probably not something we are going to care about though. -- Adam Litke <a...@us.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel