>>>>> "gm" == Gary Mills <mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca> writes:
gm> ZFS on a file server, exporting storage to an application
gm> server where ZFS also runs on top of that storage. All
gm> storage management would take place on the file server, where
gm> the physical disks reside. The application server would still
gm> perform end-to-end error checking but would notify the file
gm> server when it detected an error.
> I think Lustre group wants or was directed to arrange for ZFS
> becoming a supported backing store. Since Lustre might have
> less interoperability baggage than NFS, SMB, iSCSI, maybe you
> could convince them to extend the ZFS-checksum protection
> domain out to the Lustre client. I don't really know what they are
> doing. It might end up without quite the level of elegance of a
> ZFS checksum tree since there will be multiple ZFS's beneath
> Lustre, but adding the idea of a ``protection domain'' to their
> deliberations might make Lustre-ZFS meaningfully better.
2 points...
[a] There is a standard for such end to end data integrity, i.g. T10 DIF.
many vendors seem to be moving that way. For a high level overview
see ->
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/continuity/news/article.php/3672651
[b] The Lustre team, I believe, is looking at porting the DMU **not**
the entire
zfs stack. There are still license issues, i.g. CDDL vs. GPL. How that will
be handled hasn't been discussed openly as far as I know.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
