Hello malcom and matt thank you for apporting some more information
source. OpenAFS is sure interesting httpfs too.
I hope it will help us on deciding the best path to follow in our
interface with window.
Actually I still trying to isolate the needed client code in the
shortest way possible.
Regards.
Alphe Salas
El nov 7, 2013 9:11 p.m., "Malcolm Haak" <malc...@sgi.com
<mailto:malc...@sgi.com>> escribió:
I'm just going to throw these in there.
http://www.acc.umu.se/~bosse/ <http://www.acc.umu.se/%7Ebosse/>
They are GPLv2 some already use sockets and such from inside the
kernel. Heck you might even be able to mod the HTTP one to use
rados gateway. I don't know as I havent sat down and pulled them
apart enough yet.
They might help, but they might be useless. Not sure.
On 08/11/13 06:47, Alphe Salas Michels wrote:
Hello all I finally finished my first source code extraction
that starts
from ceph/src/client/fuse_ll.c
The result is accurate unlike previous provided results.
basically the
script start from a file extract all the private includes
definitions
#include "something.h" and recursively extract private includes
too. the
best way to know who is related with who.
starting from fuse_ll.cc I optain 390 files retreived and 120
000 lines
of code !
involved dirs are : in ceph/src
objclass/, common/, msg/, common/, osdc/, include/, client/, mds/,
global/, json_spirit/, log/, os/, crush/, mon/, osd/, auth/
probably not a good way to analyse what amount of work it means
since
most of those directories are the implementation of servers
(osd, mon,
mds) and even if only a tiny bit of them is needed at client
level. you
need two structures from ./osd/OSD.h and my script by relation will
take into acount the whole directory...
I ran the script with libcephfs.cc as start point and got almost the
same results. 131 000 lines of code and 386 files most of the
same dirs
involved.
I think I will spend alot of time doing the manual source code
isolation
and understand way each #include is set in the files I read (what
purpose they have do they allow to integrate a crucial data type
or not.
The other way around will be to read src/libcephfs.cc. It seems
shorter
but without understanding what part is used for each included
header I
can t say anything...
I will keep reading the source code and take notes. I think in
the case
of libcephfs I will gain alot of time.
signature
*Alphé Salas*
Ingeniero T.I
asa...@kepler.cl <mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>
*www.kepler.cl <http://www.kepler.cl> <http://www.kepler.cl>*
On 11/07/13 15:02, Alphe Salas Michels wrote:
Hello D.Ketor and Matt Benjamin,
You give me alot to think about and this is great!
I merged your previous post to make a single reply that
anyone can
report to easyly
Windows NFS 4.1 is available here:
http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/nfsv4/windows/readme.html
pnfs is another name for NFS4.X. It is presented as
alternative to
ceph and we get known terminology as MDS and OSD but without
the self
healing part if I understand well my rapid look on the
topic. (when I
say rapid look I mean ... 5 minutes spent in that... which
is really
small amount of time to get an accurate view on something)
starting from mount.ceph ... I know that mount.ceph does
little but it
is a great hint to know what ceph needs and do things.
Basically mount.ceph modprobe the ceph driver in the linux
kernel then
call mount with the line command passed args and the cephfs
type as
argument. Then the kernel does the work I don t understand
yet what is
the start calls that are made to the ceph driver but it
seemed to me
that is was relatively light. (a first impression compared
to ceph-fuse.)
I think I will do both isolate source code from ceph-client
kernel
(cephfs module for linux kernel) and the one pointed by Sage
starting
from client/fuse_ll.cc in ceph master branch. The common
files betwin
those 2 extractions will be our core set of mandatory features.
Then we try to compile with cygwin a cephfs client library .
Then we
will try to interface with a modified windows nfs 4.1 client
or pnfs
or any other that will accept to be compiled with gcc for
win32...
the fact that windows 8.1 is and windows 2012 are out of
reach at the
moment is not a problem to me.
Our first concern is to understand what is ceph protocol.
Then adapt
it to something that can be used on windows prior windows
8.1. Dokan
fs if I remember well use too the WDK (windows driver
dev-kit ) for it
s compilation so possibly we will see the same limitations.
We need to multiply our source of information by example
regarding
ceph-client (kernel or fuse, radosgw is on a different layer
so I will
not try anything around it at first.) And we need to
multiply our
source of information by example regarding virtual file system
technologies on windoes OS.
Alot of work but all of those available source code everyone
point at
me will make our best solution. And in the end we will choose
technologies knowing what we do and what concequencies they
have.
regards,
Regards
signature
*Alphé Salas*
Ingeniero T.I
asa...@kepler.cl <mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>
On 11/07/13 11:29, Ketor D wrote:
Hi Alphe:
Yes Callback Filesystem is very expensive and
can't open source.
It's not a good choice for ceph4win.
Another way for ceph4win maybe develop a
kernel-mode fs like
pnfs. pnfs has a kernel-mode windows client. I think you
can read its
src code and maybe migrating from ceph kernel client to
windows kernel
fs is easier than from userspace ceph fuse client.And a
kernel-mode fs
client has greater performance than userspace fs like
ceph-fuse client
and ceph kernel client.
Regards.
On 11/07/13 11:50, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
Hi,
The Window NFS v4.1 client is what we work on, so this
may be good for
code sharing. The license is lgplv2, like Ceph's.
Something important to be aware of is that the client
uses rdbss, which
is a (partial) fsd abstraction that simplified
implementation
quite a bit, kind of like a mini driver. However,
Microsoft's support
for rdbss has been in limbo for a bit. For example, to
link with
the rdbss symbols you can't use the Windows 8 driver
kit--you'll need
to use the one for Windows 7. (There's a private rdbss2
used internally
by Microsoft's SMB implemenation. A the moment, 3rd
party drivers
can't use that.)
We've been in communication with Microsoft about this
issue, and know of
a few other fsds using it, but it could be a good thing
for that
lobbying
effort to have another user--or it could be a dead end :(.
There are a couple of other choices if you're looking to
go this route,
that I'm aware of (and we may need to take them too, if
RDBSS has no
way forward), but the required work could be a lot larger.
Matt
----- "Ketor D"<d.ke...@gmail.com
<mailto:d.ke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Alphe:
Yes Callback Filesystem is very expensive
and can't open
source.
It's not a good choice for ceph4win.
Another way for ceph4win maybe develop a
kernel-mode fs like
pnfs. pnfs has a kernel-mode windows client. I think
you can read its
src code and maybe migrating from ceph kernel client
to windows
kernel
fs is easier than from userspace ceph fuse
client.And a kernel-mode
fs
client has greater performance than userspace fs
like ceph-fuse
client
and ceph kernel client.
Regards.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Alphe Salas
Michels<asa...@kepler.cl <mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>>
wrote:
Commercial libraries are a pain ...
If we want the more permossive licence offered
by callback file
system we
have to buy it for 20.000 usd. Then we will have
to provide a
backbox that
we have no control upon and that will kill our
product anytime they
want anf
if they decide to stop their commercial activity
we will be in the
same
situation that with dokanfs but without having
the source code of
the black
box. If i have to spend 20 000 dollars i would
prefere paying
someone to
retake dokanfs or to write from scratch a
dokanfs fuselike software
make it
all shiny and pumpy fantastic and ready to plug
to ceph client.
I would prefere if people have to pay something
to get access to
ceph4win
that this money goes in ceph main branch
pockets... Or as a gift you
donante
to ceph 10 dollars you get 2 free registration
codes for
ceph4win... or
something like that.
If ceph4win as to be comercial then I would
prefer delegate the task
to a
company like south river technologies and their
great product
webdrive. I
would mininaly get involved in that project and
simply buy the final
product
to sell it together with my ceph based product
(which could be a
calxeda
ceph box or something like that).
I m open anyway to any proposition. But I doubt
that callback
filesystem
offers us a suitable solution in the way I see
ceph4win to be spread
and
used... I m maybe wrong. And anything that will
be done around
ceph4win will
be public documented etc... And licensed the way
that if someone
want to
build a commercial solution on top of it, that
would be a
possibility.
My idea is to giveback somehow to ceph project
and at same time
forge a
better knowledge in ceph technologies. Because
like many in libre
world I
think the business is in the services around the
software more than
on the
software. That the ones writing code should be
financed and benefits
from
the one selling and giving support of the
software at all levels. I
m
probably too idealistic. And too optimistic
after all I m the one
saying I
will do this stuff I have no idea how but well
it is interesting and
fun so
lets do it.
Regards,
P.S: using commercial backend libraries appart
including their own
cost will
force you to use commercial IDE like MS
VisualStudio because their
library
has some kind of drm that only that IDE compiler
can use. So alot of
cost
and yet there is nothing done. If I had to open
a kickstarter
project saying
we need 60 000 USD to do ceph4win with that
monney we will buy the
right to
use and share a commercial copyrighted library
but abandonned
punctually to
us in public domaine and that we will
eventually produce something
out of
it. I doubt I will get a dollar.
We still can suggest the idea to Edlos the
commercial company that
has the
copyright of Callback FS, Or to buy them their
product in a blender
way
(blender was bought with donation before being
put opensource and
public
domaine), Or to open source their library. But
in commercial minds
opensourcing = death of their technical
advantage and death of
their
marketing strategy. They will have to invent
something more to
retrieve
monney from it.
El nov 6, 2013 11:22 p.m., "Ketor D"
<d.ke...@gmail.com <mailto:d.ke...@gmail.com>
<mailto:d.ke...@gmail.com
<mailto:d.ke...@gmail.com>>> escribió:
Hi Alphe,
I think you could try Callback
Filesystem dev
framework. It
is a commerical dev framework and is
maintained by Edlos today.
I have communicated with Edlos to
get a try code for
development. To dokan, Callback Filesystem
has vary document and
maybe
more stabilize.
Regards.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Alphe
Salas <asa...@kepler.cl <mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>
<mailto:asa...@kepler.cl
<mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>>> wrote:
> Hello ketor thank you for your interest
un ceph4win. Since
muy
first mail I
> exposed the lacks of dokanfs and that I
m far from being a
specialist un
> filesystems.
> I exposed what i like un dokanfs bit I
not a fanátic of it.
Muy
goal is to
> have something working quickly.
>
> So I am up to any proposición sure the
one with the more docs
and
support
> will be the best choice. As for right
now what I need is
understand what are
> the files involved what are the
interfaces functions and what
are
the needed
> library dependencies and if they exist
ported to windows with
cygwin. And
> all that is retrieved from source code.
>
> Regards.
>
> El nov 6, 2013 10:34 p.m., "Ketor D"
<d.ke...@gmail.com <mailto:d.ke...@gmail.com>
<mailto:d.ke...@gmail.com
<mailto:d.ke...@gmail.com>>> escribió:
>
>> Hi Alphe,
>> We are taking an interest in your
work on Ceph Client
for
Windows
>> with Dokan.As we know, the performance
of Dokan is not very
good, and it's
>> abandoned 3 years ago.
>> I have learned and used
OpenDedup(SDFS) for a long
time.
OpenDedup
>> has a Dokan version. And the author of
OpenDedup said
>>
>> The Dokan library is quite flakey and
testing should be
performed before
>> putting into production
>>
>> So what do you think about this?
And if there is
another
solution of
>> fuse-like filesystem dev framwork on
Windows?
>>
>> Best Wish!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Alphe
Salas Michels
<asa...@kepler.cl <mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>
<mailto:asa...@kepler.cl <mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello I created the github repository
for this project
>>>https://github.com/alphe/Ceph4Win
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> signature
>>>
>>> *Alphé Salas*
>>> Ingeniero T.I
>>>
>>>asa...@kepler.cl
<mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>
<mailto:asa...@kepler.cl <mailto:asa...@kepler.cl>>
>>> *<http://www.kepler.cl>*
>>>
>>> On 11/05/13 21:00, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alphe,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Alphe Salas
Michels wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> signature *Hi, Sage !
>>>>> thank you for you enthousiast reply.
>>>>> I sure want to make the best use of
everything or
anything
previously
>>>>> done to
>>>>> tend to
>>>>> write ceph cliente for windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart using libre tools for building
the future ceph
cliente
I am open
>>>>> to
>>>>> anything.
>>>>> I would recommand eclipse CDT or
Code::BLocks they are
based
on mingwin
>>>>> open
>>>>> and easyly enhanceable.**
>>>>>
>>>>> more free tools can be found here:
>>>>>http://www.freebyte.com/programming/cpp/#cppcompilers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will read libcephfs source code
and take some notes
about the
>>>>> protocol.
>>>>
>>>> I think you don't need to worry about
hte protocol at all,
since
>>>> libcephs
>>>> implements it for you (and will
capture any future
changes).
>>>>
>>>>> I was more going from what I know
and trying to track down
how
>>>>> mount.ceph work
>>>>> with the parameters passed to it.
>>>>> since it point finally to
Kernel/fs/ceph and that I don t
really
>>>>> understand
>>>>> how that module work and that it
probably points to some
other
>>>>> dependencies
>>>>> Reading libcephfs source code could
be a big gain of
time.
>>>>
>>>> (I would also ignore mount.ceph as
everything it does it
specific to
>>>> how Linux mounts work.)
>>>>
>>>>> basically on the protocol what is
need are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) open and maintain a connection
(socket open, auth, etc
)
>>>>> 2) retreive a map of directories and
disk Quota (disk
sizing
Y TB free,
>>>>> Z TB
>>>>> total)
>>>>> 3) procedure to send files /
directories in a maner that
it
will allow
>>>>> our
>>>>> client to fit ceph transmission
protocols
>>>>> (limit bandwith for stability?,
limit connection amount?,
limit cpu
>>>>> use?,
>>>>> Cache for preparing data transfer (a
FIFO cache)?)
>>>>> 4)Procedure to retreive files /
directory from ceph
cluster
>>>>> 5) Management copy/move files
/Directories, FS stats,
Connection Stats.
>>>>> logging.
>>>>>
>>>>> My idea to progress is to take those
main bulletpoint in
ceph
protocol
>>>>> based
>>>>> on general ideas of what ceph file
system does and start
identifying
>>>>> parts
>>>>> from libcephfs to match those "needs".
>>>>
>>>> Instead, I would look at
include/cephfs/libcephfs.h, the
interface that
>>>> libcephfs provides, and try to map
that to what the fuse
layer
expects.
>>>> There is both a path-based that I
suspsect lends itself
well
to the
>>>> Windows interface and (very soon now)
a handle based API
that is
>>>> targetted
>>>> at the Unix-style VFS layers. I'm
mostly guessing,
though,
since I've
>>>> never seen any low-level fs code in
windows before.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the analogous code for
Linux should be
client/fuse_ll.cc
>>>> itself (and not much else), although
there will probably be
a
few tricks
>>>> necessary to map cleanly onto how the
windows interfaces
work.
>>>>
>>>> Does that make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> sage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestion and contributions are
welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>> On 11/05/13 11:23, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alphe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Alphe Salas
Michels wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good day developers!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to propose to the one
interested work with
me to
>>>>>>> develop a
>>>>>>> ceph
>>>>>>> cliente for MS windows world,
Basing us on dokanFS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My company is a ceph enthousiast
that use on a dayly
basis
ceph and
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> both transfer speed and big
expendable and cheap
storage.
>>>>>>> My company is specialised in data
recovery and we want
to
participate
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> ceph
>>>>>>> effort by bringing a ceph cliente
for windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Awesome!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our experience shows us that the
best gateway is each
clientes being
>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>> gateway, instead of having a
bottle neck server or a
cluster of
>>>>>>> bottle
>>>>>>> neck
>>>>>>> servers as gateway (FTP, samba,
SFTP,webdav, s3,
etc..).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already did some research in
that domain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dokan FS is an intent to write an
opensource fuse like
cliente for
>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>> windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More information on DOKANFS can be
triggered here
>>>>>>>http://dokan-dev.net/en/download/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Positive points of using DOKANFS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - its opensourced and well
licenced mit licence, gpl
licence and lgpl
>>>>>>> licence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Negative point of using DOKAN FS.
>>>>>>> - unreachable author
>>>>>>> - Poor documentation . Dev
comments in japanese.
>>>>>>> - Work in progress so it is
unstable and needs to be
updated,
>>>>>>> debugged and
>>>>>>> maintained by a MS Windows file
system expert
developper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not very familiar with windows
storage APIs, but
somebody told me
>>>>>> at once point there were several
interfaces against which
a
new file
>>>>>> system could be implemented,
everything from a full
in-kernel driver
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> something that is explorer-based.
Are any of those
suitable? Using a
>>>>>> potentially abandoned fuse-like
layer makes me a bit
nervous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I try past year to do a merge from
ceph-fuse to dokanfs
>>>>>>> here are what I learnt.
>>>>>>> - Ceph-fuse and related source
code is around 60 000
lines
of code.
>>>>>>> - Ceph protocol isn t documented
so it is like trying
to
draw a map
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> america
>>>>>>> using only a sextan and a compass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those led me to those conclusions:
>>>>>>> - I can t do it alone.
>>>>>>> - It is easier to draw down the
ceph protocol way to
work from
>>>>>>> kernel/fs/ceph
>>>>>>> sources and mount.ceph
>>>>>>> - Ceph depending libraries may be
unexistant or not up
to
date in
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> port
>>>>>>> on MS Windows (cygwin)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the most sane path should
be to make libcephfs
sufficiently
>>>>>> portable to build on windows (or
cygwin). For the bits
used
by the
>>>>>> client-side coe, I don't think
there should be much in
the
way of
>>>>>> dependencies, and the main
challenge would be untangling
the
build for
>>>>>> the necessary pieces out from the
rest of Ceph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you seen the wip-port
portability work that is
currently underway
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> Noah and Alan? That may solve many
of the cygwin
problems
you are
>>>>>> seeing
>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - MS file system specialist are
hard do find in the
"open
source
>>>>>>> libre
>>>>>>> world"
>>>>>>> so I will try in the commercial world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The commercial world has some
problems too. They need
ceph
protocol
>>>>>>> draft
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> implemente it to their own product
They will have
licencing
>>>>>>> /commercial
>>>>>>> politics that infringe lgpl, and
hide that most of the
work
is done
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> other than them. They will not
participate in a
financial
way to ceph
>>>>>>> enhancement and growth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think reimplementing the
client code is an
efficient way
>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>> Unless the goal is a pure kernel
implementation...but a
significant
>>>>>> ongoing investment in development
resources would be
needed
for that
>>>>>> going
>>>>>> forward. I suspect that is a
challenge for a platform
that
does not
>>>>>> typically rally that sort of
community effort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The easiest thing is of course just
to use CIFS and
Samba
(which works
>>>>>> today). A fuse-like approach is
probably a reasonably
middle ground
>>>>>> (both
>>>>>> in initial effort and
maintainability going forward)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sage
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send
the line "unsubscribe
ceph-devel" in
>>> the body of a message
tomajord...@vger.kernel.org
<mailto:tomajord...@vger.kernel.org>
<mailto:majord...@vger.kernel.org
<mailto:majord...@vger.kernel.org>>
>>> More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
"unsubscribe ceph-devel"
in
the body of a message tomajord...@vger.kernel.org
<mailto:tomajord...@vger.kernel.org>
More majordomo info
athttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
<http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
<mailto:majord...@vger.kernel.org>
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
