calin wrote:
question is: if you had such an implementation, are there
drawbacks expectable for the single-mount case? If not I'd vote for it
because there are not really many alternatives "on the market".
As I understand it, the largest issue is in locking and boundaries.
Correct, that is the first big issue. As soon as 2 machines can
access the same device, you must design for distributed locking.
And that means a lot more code, lower performance, and a lot of
things a local-only filesystem could do that must be disallowed.
The second issue is what is the purpose of more than 1 host
accessing the data directly from the device. There are cases
where this is a good thing because the application is designed
with data partitioning and multi-instance coordination. It is
a bad thing for random uncoordinated use like backups or fsck.
Remember that the device bandwidth is the limiter so even
when each host has a dedicated path to the device (as in
dual port SAS or FC), that 2nd host cuts the throughput by
more than 1/2 with uncoordinated seeks and transfers.
And if the host device drivers are not designed for multiple
host sharing, this can cause timeouts, resets, and false
device-failed states.
And yes... even read-only access from a 2nd host is trouble
in many parts of the design and does not come for free.
jim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
