From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Wed Dec 6 08:45:58 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B84CE99A67 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 08:45:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hausen@punkt.de) Received: from kagate.punkt.de (kagate.punkt.de [217.29.33.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF8A56907F for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 08:45:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hausen@punkt.de) Received: from hugo10.ka.punkt.de (hugo10.ka.punkt.de [217.29.44.10]) by gate2.intern.punkt.de with ESMTP id vB68jnd0046713; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:45:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.29.44.195] ([217.29.44.195]) by hugo10.ka.punkt.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id vB68jmhi067554; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:45:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hausen@punkt.de) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: NFS alternatives (was: Re: Storage overhead on zvols) From: "Patrick M. Hausen" In-Reply-To: <201712051641.vB5GfR5I052310@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:45:47 +0100 Cc: Paul Vixie , FreeBSD virtualization Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4A321A55-23FA-42AB-BF65-3DCA3464307D@punkt.de> References: <201712051641.vB5GfR5I052310@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 08:45:58 -0000 Hi all, > Am 05.12.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Rodney W. Grimes = : > 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? Kind regards, Patrick --=20 punkt.de GmbH Internet - Dienstleistungen - Beratung Kaiserallee 13a Tel.: 0721 9109-0 Fax: -100 76133 Karlsruhe info@punkt.de http://punkt.de AG Mannheim 108285 Gf: Juergen Egeling