[Sheepdog] CloudFS feature proposal

[Steven Dake]

On 11/14/2010 05:52 PM, wariola at gmail.com wrote:
> Any plan to package Sheepdog?
> 

short answer : yes

The sheepdog upstream repo needs one more man page which is sitting
around on my harddisk in incomplete state.  Once that is done, sheepdog
needs a new upstream release with the current set of software.  Once
that is complete the userland component will be packaged, and the qemu
portion is already available in rawhide.

Hopeful can find a package reviewer once this is complete - the package
is very simple, two binaries two man pages and an init script.  If you
are interested in reviewing the package, ping me offlist.

Not sure how far we will get on libvirt integration in F15 - which is
why this technology will be "tech preview" and may require manual
launching of vms.

Regards
-steve

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Steven Dake <sdake at redhat.com
> <mailto:sdake at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 11/13/2010 09:50 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
>     > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:58:37 -0700
>     > Robyn Bergeron <robyn.bergeron at gmail.com
>     <mailto:robyn.bergeron at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> Jeff had mentioned on irc the idea of packaging RBD, which uses
>     the lower
>     >> layer of Ceph (per Jeff's description when we were talking).
>     >
>     > See, my agenda was to ask next if Jeff's CloudFS had enough
>     consistency
>     > to back a block device emulator and thus displace Speepdog, which
>     I see
>     > as too ad-hoc. Now if Jeff himself prefers to package RBD (RADOS),
>     then
> 
>     It is true that sheepdog is not generically useful outside of block
>     storage and specifically QEMU enabled systems (and perhaps XEN).
>     However in the Fedora performance case, I expect sheepdog with its lower
>     memory copy operation count and tight integration with QEMU to produce
>     better performance results and lower cpu utilization, resulting in
>     higher density of VMs on equivalent hardware.  There is only one way to
>     validate this speculation - integrate the various solutions into Fedora
>     and see which has the best mix of real-world attributes.
> 
>     Regards
>     -steve
> 
>     > this may be an admission that CloudFS is not up to it. Or perhaps
>     he does
>     > not like the idea for other reason. I just basically want him to
>     > discuss the alternatives. I know he knows about them more than I do,
>     > hence the question.
>     >
>     > -- Pete
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > cloud mailing list
>     > cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>     > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     cloud mailing list
>     cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>     https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> .: war|ola :.
> Use Fedora Linux for better computing experience
> http://fedoraproject.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud