On 2013-10-22 22:41, Gregory Farnum wrote: ...
Right now, unsurprisingly, the focus of the existing Manila developers is on Option 1: it's less work than the others and supports the most common storage protocols very well. But as mentioned, it would be a pretty poor fit for CephFS
I must be missing something, I thought CephFS was supposed to be a distributed filesystem which to me means option 1 was the point.
Dima _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
