From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Subject: Re: [osd-dev] [PATCH 1/9] exofs: osd Swiss army knife
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:17:10 -0500
Message-ID: <496CB076.8080002@garzik.org>
References: <4947BFAA.4030208@panasas.com> <4947C624.3050602@panasas.com> <4964CEA4.7080001@panasas.com> <20090113135526.28730314@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090113150955.GA9636@shareable.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com>,
	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>,
	open-osd development <osd-dev@open-osd.org>,
	Avishay Traeger <avishay@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1757079AbZAMPRk@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090113150955.GA9636@shareable.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Having one super block would be silly.

Yep.


> But aren't most kinds of replication better done behind the OSD level,
> on the storage fabric?  OSD is all about letting the fabric decide
> things like allocation and durability strategies after all.

Probably, but one cannot _assume_ that.  The OSD device might just be a 
dumb, non-replicated OSD simulator, or in the future, a singleton SATA 
drive.

	Jeff