| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Some thoughts on NFS |
| Date: | 2019-02-19 18:17:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20190219181715.z3w5bbsauimyqtu3@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-02-19 16:59:35 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> There might be a use-case for the split that you mention, absolutely, but
> it's not going to solve the people-who-want-NFS situation. You'd solve more
> of that by having the middle layer speak "raw device" underneath and be
> able to sit on top of things like iSCSI (yes, really).
There's decent iSCSI implementations in several kernels, without the NFS
problems. I'm not sure what we'd gain by reimplementing those?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-19 18:21:21 | Re: Some thoughts on NFS |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2019-02-19 18:12:31 | Re: Some thoughts on NFS |