From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heinz Mauelshagen Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] dm-replicator: introduce new remote replication target Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:03:08 +0100 Message-ID: <1260381788.9639.115.camel@o> References: <1259683507-12455-1-git-send-email-heinzm@redhat.com> <20091201164142.GL19238@suse.de> <1259687919.9639.15.camel@o> <1260297747.4147.30.camel@mulgrave.site> <20091209103941.GA920@infradead.org> Reply-To: heinzm@redhat.com, device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091209103941.GA920@infradead.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: device-mapper development List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 05:39 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 12:42:27PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > Could I just echo Lars' statement. With the upstream inclusion of drbd, > > dm-replicator becomes a *third* replication system asking to be in > > kernel. It is definitely a kernel policy question of whether we want > > three separate replicators, and so should be Cc'd to lkml so that people > > interested in that can weigh in. > > And unliley the previous two this one actually offers the benefit of > beeing integrated with our major block device management framework. Yes. Plus it removes the 3 site limitation (2048 technical limit) and offers consistent multi-device replication. > > Interesting that the question comes up now after I was shot down for it > in the drbd discussion. > > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel