Questions for Storage Engineers
Hey Guys, This is a favor for the btrfs developers, one of my aunt's work's at IBM and is able to ask questions to a few storage engineers about features they would like to see in a file system and it's tools. In addition if you would like to ask them about how to improve btrfs too, I can send another email to her with your questions. Regards Nick
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:33:22 -0400, Nick Krause said:
This is a favor for the btrfs developers, one of my aunt's work's at IBM and is able to ask questions to a few storage engineers about features they would like to see in a file system and it's tools. In addition if you would like to ask them about how to improve btrfs too, I can send another email to her with your questions.
The two most obvious questions are: 1) Why do you think that IBM storage engineers have any interesting comments about btrfs? Hint: if IBM is including a storage engineer in the discussion of a project, it's probably not a good usage case for btrfs. Storage engineers get involved when the right answer is Lustre, or IBM's GPFS, or SGI's CXFS, or large-scale offerings from EMC or NetApp, or similar over-the-top solutions. (Full disclosure: I work with those sorts of storage systems for a living, and everything mentioned in the previous paragraph is on the floor across the hall) 2) Why aren't the btrfs developers doing the talking themselves?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:33:22 -0400, Nick Krause said:
This is a favor for the btrfs developers, one of my aunt's work's at IBM and is able to ask questions to a few storage engineers about features they would like to see in a file system and it's tools. In addition if you would like to ask them about how to improve btrfs too, I can send another email to her with your questions.
The two most obvious questions are:
1) Why do you think that IBM storage engineers have any interesting comments about btrfs? Hint: if IBM is including a storage engineer in the discussion of a project, it's probably not a good usage case for btrfs. Storage engineers get involved when the right answer is Lustre, or IBM's GPFS, or SGI's CXFS, or large-scale offerings from EMC or NetApp, or similar over-the-top solutions.
(Full disclosure: I work with those sorts of storage systems for a living, and everything mentioned in the previous paragraph is on the floor across the hall)
2) Why aren't the btrfs developers doing the talking themselves? That's fair Valdis, the interesting thing through is that btrfs is their chosen file system internally at least and they seem to be moving their clients off ext4 to btrfs. The client's who are using btrfs will be more useful if I can get the information :). I been banned from the list so I can't get them involved directly and it's better I try to get the information from her them you guys as I have known her for longer. Cheers Nick
Each filesystem has its own use-case. Like XFS is for big data, btrfs with its COW and other features meets some specific use-cases like facebook where they have a scenario(refer http://lwn.net/Articles/591780/ ) where btrfs suites then perfectly. So first research, google and then post suchh questions directly on the mailing list. Regards, Saket Sinha On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Nick Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:33:22 -0400, Nick Krause said:
This is a favor for the btrfs developers, one of my aunt's work's at IBM and is able to ask questions to a few storage engineers about features they would like to see in a file system and it's tools. In addition if you would like to ask them about how to improve btrfs too, I can send another email to her with your questions.
The two most obvious questions are:
1) Why do you think that IBM storage engineers have any interesting comments about btrfs? Hint: if IBM is including a storage engineer in the discussion of a project, it's probably not a good usage case for btrfs. Storage engineers get involved when the right answer is Lustre, or IBM's GPFS, or SGI's CXFS, or large-scale offerings from EMC or NetApp, or similar over-the-top solutions.
(Full disclosure: I work with those sorts of storage systems for a living, and everything mentioned in the previous paragraph is on the floor across the hall)
2) Why aren't the btrfs developers doing the talking themselves? That's fair Valdis, the interesting thing through is that btrfs is their chosen file system internally at least and they seem to be moving their clients off ext4 to btrfs. The client's who are using btrfs will be more useful if I can get the information :). I been banned from the list so I can't get them involved directly and it's better I try to get the information from her them you guys as I have known her for longer. Cheers Nick
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:49:48 +0530, Saket Sinha said:
Each filesystem has its own use-case. Like XFS is for big data, btrfs with its COW and other features meets some specific use-cases like facebook where they have a scenario(refer http://lwn.net/Articles/591780/ ) where btrfs suites then perfectly.
Right. The point I was making is that although btrfs has some *really* nice use-cases, they are by and large places where IBM is *not* going to engage one of their storage engineers. A "use btrfs" recommendation is going to come from a different engineering group, and a "here's how to tune btrfs" is probably going to come from somebody in their Professional Services (at $200/hour and up).
I agree with Valdis. This is how it works. On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:52 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:49:48 +0530, Saket Sinha said:
Each filesystem has its own use-case. Like XFS is for big data, btrfs with its COW and other features meets some specific use-cases like facebook where they have a scenario(refer http://lwn.net/Articles/591780/ ) where btrfs suites then perfectly.
Right. The point I was making is that although btrfs has some *really* nice use-cases, they are by and large places where IBM is *not* going to engage one of their storage engineers. A "use btrfs" recommendation is going to come from a different engineering group, and a "here's how to tune btrfs" is probably going to come from somebody in their Professional Services (at $200/hour and up).
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:05:25 -0400, Nick Krause said:
I can get the information :). I been banned from the list so I can't get them involved directly and it's better
You *do* realize that the btrfs maintainers haven't been banned from anyplace, and have enough name recognition that if they want info, they can go talk to people themselves, right? In other words, what's the value-added that you're providing here? Oh, and if IBM wants a feature in Linux, they in general don't make a mention of what feature they want - they *submit a patch*, properly tested, with benchmarks, documentation, and matching userspace tool patches.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:32 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:05:25 -0400, Nick Krause said:
I can get the information :). I been banned from the list so I can't get them involved directly and it's better
You *do* realize that the btrfs maintainers haven't been banned from anyplace, and have enough name recognition that if they want info, they can go talk to people themselves, right?
In other words, what's the value-added that you're providing here?
Oh, and if IBM wants a feature in Linux, they in general don't make a mention of what feature they want - they *submit a patch*, properly tested, with benchmarks, documentation, and matching userspace tool patches.
Very well then I guess this is closed then. Nick
participants (4)
-
Andrew Bourhill -
Nick Krause -
Saket Sinha -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu