From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Garlick Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph distributed file system client for 2.6.33 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:05 -0800 Message-ID: <20091218231505.GA21371@llnl.gov> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sage Weil , Gregory Haskins , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 01:38:00PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Sage Weil wrote: > > > > I would still like to see ceph merged for 2.6.33. It's certainly not > > production ready, but it would be greatly beneficial to be in mainline for > > the same reasons other file systems like btrfs and exofs were merged > > early. > > The best thing to do is to try to have users that are vocal about the > feature, and talk about how great it is. Some advocates for it, in other > words. Just a few other people saying "hey, I use this, it's great", is > actually a big deal to me. For alacrityvm and cephfs, I didn't have that, > or they just weren't loud enough for me to hear. FWIW: I'd like to see it go in. Ceph is new and experimental so you're not going to see production shops like ours jumping up and down saying we use it and are tired of merging it, like we would say if if Lustre were (again) on the table. However I will say Ceph looks good and in the interest of nuturing future options, I'm for merging it! Jim Garlick Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory