[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 00/22] add Object Storage Media Pool (mpool)
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 7:24 AM Mike Snitzer <> wrote:
> Hey Dan,
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 6:38 PM Dan Williams <> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 2:59 PM Nabeel Meeramohideen Mohamed
> > (nmeeramohide) <> wrote:
> >
> > > (5) Representing an mpool as a /dev/mpool/<mpool-name> device file provides a
> > > convenient mechanism for controlling access to and managing the multiple storage
> > > volumes, and in the future pmem devices, that may comprise an logical mpool.
> >
> > Christoph and I have talked about replacing the pmem driver's
> > dependence on device-mapper for pooling.
> Was this discussion done publicly or private? If public please share
> a pointer to the thread.
> I'd really like to understand the problem statement that is leading to
> pursuing a pmem native alternative to existing DM.

IIRC it was during the hallway track at a conference. Some of the
concern is the flexibility to carve physical address space but not
attach a block-device in front of it, and allow pmem/dax-capable
filesystems to mount on something other than a block-device.

DM does fit the bill for block-device concatenation and striping, but
there's some pressure to have a level of provisioning beneath that.

The device-dax facility has already started to grow some physical
address space partitioning capabilities this cycle, see 60e93dc097f7
device-dax: add dis-contiguous resource support, and the question
becomes when / if that support needs to extend across regions is DM
the right tool for that?

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-21 18:24    [W:0.358 / U:0.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site