From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <84e664b65377e0d40f735b3fe29ea91e@coraid.com>
To: cnielsen@pobox.com, 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] page fault with lock held
From: Brantley Coile <brantley@coraid.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:57:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20050412220754.GO58567@cassie.foobarbaz.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 36e7e3ca-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> i agree with geoff here. i don't like the idea of having
> a separate interface; everything storage should be connected
> into the sd framework.
> 
> i have a bit of free time, right now, and if you'd like to
> brainstorm off-list about how to integrate aoe into the sd
> machinery, i would certainly like to help.


We agree as well--except for the reasons Sam mentioned in his earlier
email.  EtherDrives come and go, they have names that don't fit in the
sd way of doing things, and we wanted to get something working quickly
so we can learn how best to marry Plan 9 and AoE.  I think we will
wait until we have some experience under our belt.  I think we may
need to change sd a little to fit things like AoE into it.  It makes
sense to do that after we have something working.

And it's almost working now.


One other thought.  I'm working on some raid software.  It may make
more sense for those devices to appear as sd(3) and the AoE to be
somewhere else.  This will avoid cluttering /dev with devices that you
won't be using as individual blades anyway.  Maybe I need to look into
hooking my raid stuff into that.

  Brantley