[Lustre-discuss] Patchless server

James Braid jamesb at loreland.org
Tue Oct 14 06:31:10 PDT 2008

2008/10/14 Lukas Hejtmanek <xhejtman at ics.muni.cz>:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:28:24PM -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> But ultimately, at least currently, a patchless server would have a
>> significant performance impact.  Most of our customers, as much as they
>> would like a patchless server, appreciate the performance gains that can
>> be made for the patched kernel (on what should be a dedicated server
>> anyway).
> well, general significant performance boost patches should go to mainstream,
> am I wrong? Does it cost more resources to try them merge to the mainstream
> than maintaining them separately?

I think you misunderstood Brian, the server patches aren't really
"general performance" patches, they are specific to Lustre and the
mainline kernel people won't accept patches like that without an
in-kernel user among other reasons...

The ldiskfs work is being integrated and forms a large chunk of ext4.

> Would there be significant performance loss if the server would be moved
> completely to the user space and then there would be minimum problems with
> kernels.

That is/was the plan last time I heard... not sure what the current
status is... search bugzilla for uoss/umds

More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list