On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Thoughts:
>> 1) I absolutely agree that NFS is far more prominent and useful than any
>> network block device, at the present time.
>>
>> 2) Nonetheless, swap over NFS is a
Hi!
> > 2) Nonetheless, swap over NFS is a pretty rare case. I view this work
> > as interesting, but I really don't see a huge need, for swapping over
> > NBD or swapping over NFS. I tend to think swapping to a remote resource
> > starts to approach "migration" rather than merely swapping.
Hi.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:54:02AM -0400, Mike Snitzer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > Trouble with that part is that we don't have any sane network block
> > devices atm, NBD is utter crap, and iSCSI is too complex to be called
> > sane.
> >
> > Maybe Evgeniy's Distributed storage thingy woul
On 10/31/07, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:50 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:37:53PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > Don't be misled. Swapping over NFS is just a scarecrow for the
> > > seemingly real impetus behind these chan
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 15:37, David Miller wrote:
From: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:26:32 +1100
Is it really worth all the added complexity of making swap
over NFS files work, given that you could use a network block
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> But please, people who want this (I'm sure some of you are reading) do
> speak up. I'm just the motivated corporate drone implementing the
> feature :-)
FWIW, I could have used a "swap to network technology X" like system at
my last job. We were building a large networ
Em Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Thoughts:
> >
> > 1) I absolutely agree that NFS is far more prominent and useful than any
> > network block device, at the present time.
> >
> >
> > 2) Nonetheless, sw
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Thoughts:
>
> 1) I absolutely agree that NFS is far more prominent and useful than any
> network block device, at the present time.
>
>
> 2) Nonetheless, swap over NFS is a pretty rare case. I view this work
> as interesting, but I reall
Thoughts:
1) I absolutely agree that NFS is far more prominent and useful than any
network block device, at the present time.
2) Nonetheless, swap over NFS is a pretty rare case. I view this work
as interesting, but I really don't see a huge need, for swapping over
NBD or swapping over NFS
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 14:26 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 October 2007 03:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Another posting of the full swap over NFS series.
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it really worth all the added complexity of making swap
> over NFS files work, given that you could us
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 12:18 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > So please get the VM bits for swap over network blockdevices in first,
> >
> > Trouble with that part is that we don't have any sane network block
> > devices atm, NBD is utter crap, and iSCSI is too complex to be called
> > san
Hi!
> > So please get the VM bits for swap over network blockdevices in first,
>
> Trouble with that part is that we don't have any sane network block
> devices atm, NBD is utter crap, and iSCSI is too complex to be called
> sane.
Hey, NBD was designed to be _simple_. And I think it works okay i
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:50 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:37:53PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > Don't be misled. Swapping over NFS is just a scarecrow for the
> > seemingly real impetus behind these changes which is network storage
> > stuff like iSCSI.
>
> So can
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 21:37 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:26:32 +1100
>
> > Is it really worth all the added complexity of making swap
> > over NFS files work, given that you could use a network block
> > device instead?
>
> Don't b
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:37:53PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Don't be misled. Swapping over NFS is just a scarecrow for the
> seemingly real impetus behind these changes which is network storage
> stuff like iSCSI.
So can we please do swap over network storage only first? All these
VM bits lo
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 15:37, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:26:32 +1100
>
> > Is it really worth all the added complexity of making swap
> > over NFS files work, given that you could use a network block
> > device instead?
>
> Don't be
From: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:26:32 +1100
> Is it really worth all the added complexity of making swap
> over NFS files work, given that you could use a network block
> device instead?
Don't be misled. Swapping over NFS is just a scarecrow for the
seemingly real
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 03:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Another posting of the full swap over NFS series.
Hi,
Is it really worth all the added complexity of making swap
over NFS files work, given that you could use a network block
device instead?
Also, have you ensured that page_file
Hi,
Another posting of the full swap over NFS series.
[ I tried just posting the first part last time around, but
that just gets more confusion by lack of a general picture ]
[ patches against 2.6.23-mm1, also to be found online at:
http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/vm_deadlo
19 matches
Mail list logo
