From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 28 13:28:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2BA16A423 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:28:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr) Received: from pinus.cc.fer.hr (pinus.cc.fer.hr [161.53.73.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3CA43D68 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:28:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ivoras@fer.hr) Received: from [161.53.72.113] (lara.cc.fer.hr [161.53.72.113]) by pinus.cc.fer.hr (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id jASDSHFx015591; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:28:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <438B05D6.3000108@fer.hr> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:27:50 +0100 From: Ivan Voras User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mike , hackers@freebsd.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Possible way to distribute NFS? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:28:23 -0000 mike wrote: > If someone could write an NFS client using FUSE (perhaps?) and have it > integrate with memcached[1], couldn't that basically allow for n+1 scaling I have had a similar idea to do in FUSE for some time now, but I'm waiting until I can spare the time to do it and the FUSE system becomes more stable (which should happen soon). Also note that, if done with FUSE, it will be slower than kernel code. Maybe not by much (http://creo.hu/pipermail/fuse4bsd-devel/2005-October/000009.html), but it's not yet clear how much. The problem I would try to solve is that of having single-writer- multiple-readers setup (writes go through one machine, get distributed to other machines, reads can go wherever), and without using NFS (though it's a good idea now that you mention it :) ), so it's maybe not what you need. If understand your suggestion correctly, all "NFS-like" traffic would pass through a single machine, which doesn't sound good speed-wise...?