From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N1Lb1-0008NZ-0r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:58:27 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N1Lay-0008MK-Ti
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:58:26 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58651 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N1Lay-0008Ly-Jn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:58:24 -0400
Received: from alpha.arachsys.com ([91.203.57.7]:47505)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <chris@arachsys.com>) id 1N1Lay-0005dZ-4o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:58:24 -0400
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:58:15 +0100
From: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Sheepdog: Distributed Storage
	System for KVM
Message-ID: <20091023145815.GE18955@arachsys.com>
References: <4ADE988B.2070303@lab.ntt.co.jp> <4AE07A7F.8000002@redhat.com>
	<8fd1d76d0910230341w7978ac09te203ef34b79a86c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<90eb1dc70910230714h65e918a4n255bcf97634b26b0@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <90eb1dc70910230714h65e918a4n255bcf97634b26b0@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Javier Guerra <javier@guerrag.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, MORITA Kazutaka <morita.kazutaka@lab.ntt.co.jp>, kvm@vger.kernel.org

Javier Guerra <javier@guerrag.com> writes:

> i'd just want to add my '+1 votes' on both getting rid of JVM
> dependency and using block devices (usually LVM) instead of ext3/btrfs

If the chunks into which the virtual drives are split are quite small (say
the 64MB used by Hadoop), LVM may be a less appropriate choice. It doesn't
support very large numbers of very small logical volumes very well.

Best wishes,

Chris.