Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:48:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen@punkt.de> Cc: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>, FreeBSD virtualization <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NFS alternatives (was: Re: Storage overhead on zvols) Message-ID: <201712061748.vB6Hm13h057501@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <4A321A55-23FA-42AB-BF65-3DCA3464307D@punkt.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hi all, > > > Am 05.12.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>: > > In effect what your asking for is what NFS does, so use NFS and get > > over the fact that this is the way to get what you want. Sure you > > could implement a virt-vfs but I wonder how close the spec of that > > would be to the spec of NFS. > > I figure it should be possible to implement something simpler > than NFS that provides full local posix semantics under the > constraint that only one "client" is allowed to mount the FS > at a time. > > I see quite a few applications for something like this, specifically > in "hyperconvergent" environments. Or vagrant, of course. > > *scratching head* isn't this what Sun's "network disk" protocol provided? nd provided a 512b block device, no file system symatics at all, I believe it did allow 1 writer N readers though. Today you would use iSCSI in place of nd. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201712061748.vB6Hm13h057501>