The architecture of the RAID drivers is extremely primitive, and
limiting, and does not handle hotixing or distributed cases. There are
dependencies on NWFS for controlling th mirroring. At present, the
buffer cache does not support a logical semantic. It's true we could
"stand on our heads" and map something very unnatural to what's there,
but there are still issues and problems with the buffer cache and how it
acts. There are also config issues. NWFS style allows end users to
configure and use mirroring on Linux without needing a degree in
astro-physics to understand how to set it up.
We basically need a smarter cache than what's there. Eventually, Linux
will evolve there (Since the page cache already resembles what's in NT).
Jeff
Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Which is exactly what we have concluded. We probably should provide
> > some input into 2.5 for our needs. We would be happy to put in the
> > subsystems we require. The benefit to Linux would be a built in fault
> > tolerant redirector within the cache (which is useful for this and
> > distributed support -- time to start thinking about this). This would
> > allow all of the Linux file systems to support multi-segmented
> > mirroring and fault tolerant failover without the RAID drivers.
>
> What is problem with the RAID drivers?
> Pavel
> --
> I'm really pavel@ucw.cz. Look at http://195.113.31.123/~pavel. Pavel
> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/