From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jim owens Subject: Re: Thin provisioning & arrays Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:59:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4919ABC6.8030606@hp.com> References: <28572.1226369378@ocs10w> <49198FC3.7080301@redhat.com> <49199CFF.8080002@hp.com> <4919A705.2070301@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Keith Owens , Black_David@emc.com, david@fromorbit.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com, chris.mason@oracle.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, coughlan@redhat.com, matthew@wil.cx To: Ric Wheeler Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4919A705.2070301@redhat.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ric Wheeler wrote: > jim owens wrote: >> >> And by "different users" these customers almost always mean >> different operating systems. They are combining storage into >> a central location for easier management. > > When you have one specific LUN exported from an array, it is owned by > one OS. You can definitely have different LUN's used by different OS's, > but that seems to be irrelevant to our challenges here, right? But the total thin storage pool is shared by multiple luns and thus maybe multiple not-able-to-cooperate hosts. I was only pointing this out because earlier threads seemed to be "linux filesystems to be exact across multiple hosts" (which is really a cluster design) and even if we did that for linux it would not solve the customer need. I just wanted to make it clear why trying to do a complicated change to linux for exactness is pointless because the customer requirement is for more than linux attached to the thin pool. So the relevance is our design boundary. jim