From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40043) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S4WeJ-00027e-Ih for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:04:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S4WeA-0006g9-DJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:04:19 -0500 Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]:65152) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S4WeA-0006fe-2Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:04:10 -0500 Received: by lahe6 with SMTP id e6so5117437lah.4 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 04:04:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F52FA48.9050903@zerto.com> References: <73865e0ce364c40e0eb65ec6b22b819d@mail.gmail.com> <4F31153E.9010205@codemonkey.ws> <4F311839.9030709@redhat.com> <4F311BBA.8000708@codemonkey.ws> <4F312FD3.5020206@zerto.com> <4F3137DB.1040503@redhat.com> <4F3139CE.4040103@zerto.com> <4F314798.8010009@redhat.com> <4F3211D0.3070502@zerto.com> <4F323875.1000000@redhat.com> <4F3244C2.1040604@zerto.com> <4F32489A.80307@redhat.com> <4F32788C.60904@zerto.com> <4F40FBD6.2000500@zerto.com> <4F425987.20103@redhat.com> <4F435DD2.8080600@redhat.com> <4F4DE40C.9020001@zerto.com> <4F52FA48.9050903@zerto.com> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 12:04:07 +0000 Message-ID: From: Stefan Hajnoczi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] BlockDriverState stack and BlockListeners List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Ori Mamluk Cc: Kevin Wolf , =?UTF-8?B?16rXldee16gg15HXnyDXkNeV16g=?= , =?UTF-8?B?16LXldeT15Mg16fXk9ed?= , dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Zhi Yong Wu , Federico Simoncelli , Yair Kuszpet , Paolo Bonzini On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Ori Mamluk wrote: > On 03/03/2012 13:46, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Ori Mamluk =A0wrote: >>> >>> I think the BlockFilter direction goes very well with our plans for a >>> replication module. >>> I guess it would take some discussions and time to form a solid layer f= or >>> the BlockFilters, and I'd like to move ahead in parallel with the >>> replication module. >> >> Will the replicatoin module still use a custom network protocol or do >> you plan to implement the in-process NBD server? >> >> I have added the in-process NBD server idea to the Google Summer of >> Code 2012 project ideas page. =A0Perhaps students will be interested in >> implementing it this summer. =A0But if you are already working on it I >> can remove the idea, please let me know. >> >> Thanks, >> Stefan > > I prefer not to do it as NBD server, mainly because NBD by definition > requires a port per volume and I think it will pose a management overhead= . > So my current plan is a custom protocol - but it's still TBD. Okay, in that case I'll leave the GSoC project because the in-process NBD server is a useful feature to have in the future. Stefan