Re: [PATCH 04/16] DRBD: bitmap

[Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>]

On 2009-05-03T15:21:41, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:

> As I said, I don't immediately see the benefits of the activity log
> format, however,
>  1/ I am happy to listen to its benefits being explained
>  2/ If we were to agree that merging DRBD functionality into md
>    (for which there isn't a concrete proposal, but the suggestion
>     seems to be floating around) were a good thing, I don't have any
>     problem with supporting an activity log in md in the name of
>     compatibility.

So, let's take a step back here.

All of this is extremely beneficial discussion to be had. As some of you
are (painfully, sometimes ;-) aware, I'm a big fan of converging RAID
implementations/back-ends, and the goal is well received.

But this will take a while, and both drbd, md, md/nbd, or even dm-raid1
have large existing user bases, and HA environments don't switch easily.
All are actively maintained.

Sharing more and more of the code strikes me as a mid-term goal, and
full converges as a long-term one (alas).

What I think this argument has shown that drbd's design is sound (even
if some choices, like that of the alternatives, are up for discussion),
similar to different file systems (of which we seem to have plenty
too).

I would suggest at this time, we may want to refocus on the remaining
objections to merging drbd as a driver in the short-term.

I think I've not read anything in the last 3-5 days which still would
rate as a reason for rejection or delay.

Did I miss something?


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
SuSE Labs, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde