X-Sylpheed-Account-Id:2
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
X-Sylpheed-Encrypt:0
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	4B6A08C587958942AA3002690DD4F8C3BA870A87@cosmail02.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:11:45 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Kingsbury, Brent" <Brent.Kingsbury@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: TuxStor and Sam.
Message-ID: <20100309101145.442bce89@ripper.onstor.net>
References: <4B6A08C587958942AA3002690DD4F8C3BA8708C9@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<20100309073852.2f801b89@ripper.onstor.net>
	<4B6A08C587958942AA3002690DD4F8C3BA870A87@cosmail02.lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All true.  But the platform that the new FS changes will run on is
tuxstor, so it's a prerequisite to all that.

So, while Terence and Anurag re-implement the snapshots and on-disk
layout, what are the other 13 engineers in Jobi's group going to work
on?  OK, maybe it takes 6 people to do that, not I'm just trying to keep
anyone from getting bored.

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:58:41 -0700 "Kingsbury, Brent"
<Brent.Kingsbury@lsi.com> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
> 
> 1. I reserve the right to change my mind the instant new stuff shows
> up overthrowing any previously held view.
> 2. We need to urgently get TuxStor done for the reasons you outlined.
> 3. We need to get the on-disk layout worked out as well.  Why?  The
>    layout we have does not meet the future needs, and we only have
> this one chance to make substantial changes.  Unfortunately, those
> changes require snapshots to be reimplemented (we can't realistically
> deliver the new layout without redoing snapshots now).  And the
> snapshot changes meanwhile are connected to other changes (directory
> layout in particular), because of how we need things to work in the
> long run. 4. If I had been working on TuxStor from the get-go, I'd
> probably be able to produce a list like [3] as to why TuxStor was on
> fire.
> 
> I meant what I said previously: I see the classical engineering
> squeeze play happening.  With a whopping four weeks of time here at
> ONStor, those that know the product better than me are in a much
> better position to judge the tradeoffs.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --BK
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@lsi.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 7:39 AM
> To: Kingsbury, Brent
> Subject: Re: TuxStor and Sam.
> 
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:34:02 -0700 "Kingsbury, Brent"
> <Brent.Kingsbury@lsi.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andy,
> > 
> > Purely FYI, Sam is interested in working on the TuxStor effort, if
> > you and Jobi, (and whoever else) decide.  (You asked me to ask
> > around up here about anyone else who might also be interested.)
> > 
> > 'That said, having seen _The List_ of all of the filesystem work
> > that needs to get done this year, I'd be stupid to claim I am not
> > concerned about losing any resources from the filesystem effort.
> > It's the usual story we've all seen before:  Buckets 'O Work and
> > spoonfuls of time!  Sigh.....
> 
> Right, but here's two small reality checks: 1) we don't actually have
> to get *all* those filesystem tasks done this year, or even ever; 2)
> until we deliver tuxstor, there's nothing to deliver *any* filesystem
> features on.
