From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wido den Hollander Subject: Re: CephFS First product release discussion Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:08:16 +0100 Message-ID: <51363490.4070408@42on.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from websrv.42on.com ([31.25.102.167]:44866 "EHLO websrv.42on.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758044Ab3CESIT (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:08:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Greg Farnum Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 03/05/2013 06:03 PM, Greg Farnum wrote: > This is a companion discussion to the blog post at http://ceph.com/de= v-notes/cephfs-mds-status-discussion/ =E2=80=94 go read that! > > The short and slightly alternate version: I spent most of about two w= eeks working on bugs related to snapshots in the MDS, and we started re= alizing that we could probably do our first supported release of CephFS= and the related infrastructure much sooner if we didn't need to suppor= t all of the whizbang features. (This isn't to say that the base featur= e set is stable now, but it's much closer than when you turn on some of= the other things.) I'd like to get feedback from you in the community = on what minimum supported feature set would prompt or allow you to star= t using CephFS in real environments =E2=80=94 not what you'd *like* to = see, but what you *need* to see. This will allow us at Inktank to prior= itize more effectively and hopefully get out a supported release much m= ore quickly! :) > > The current proposed feature set is basically what's left over after = we've trimmed off everything we can think to split off, but if any of t= he proposed included features are also particularly important or don't = matter, be sure to mention them (NFS export in particular =E2=80=94 it = works right now but isn't in great shape due to NFS filehandle caching)= =2E > Great news! Although RBD and RADOS itself are already great, a lot of=20 applications would still require a shared filesystem. Think about a (Cloud|Open)Stack environment with thousands of instances= =20 running but also need some form of shared filesystem. One thing I'm missing though is user-quotas, have they been discussed a= t=20 all and what would the work to implement those involve? I know it would require a lot more tracking per file so it's not that=20 easy and would certainly not make it into a first release, but are they= =20 on the roadmap at all? > Thanks, > -Greg > > Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com > ^ awesome title ;) > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel"= in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > --=20 Wido den Hollander 42on B.V. Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902 Skype: contact42on -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html