Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage Linux

DRBD To Be Included In Linux Kernel 2.6.33 166

Posted by timothy
from the now-you-can-sleep-nights dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The long-time Linux kernel module for block replication over TCP, DRBD, has been accepted as part of the main Linux kernel. Amid much fanfare and some slight controversy, Linus has pulled the DRBD source into the 2.6.33 tree, expected to release February, 2010. DRBD has existed as open source and been available in major distros for 10 years, but lived outside the main kernel tree in the hands of LINBIT, based in Vienna. Being accepted into the main kernel tree means better cooperation and wider user accessibility to HA data replication."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DRBD To Be Included In Linux Kernel 2.6.33

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10, 2009 @09:43PM (#30397534)

    About 15 years ago, I worked for a place that used Tru64. It offered very similar technology to this. Frankly, we found typical hardware solutions to work better. Software is better at some things, but for work like this, you want it done as much in hardware as is possible.

  • No bloat, no sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FranTaylor (164577) on Thursday December 10, 2009 @10:26PM (#30397846)

    It's a kernel module. Don't like it, don't load it.

    Your "requirement": "something that the majority of Linux users need, or want" is irrelevant. There are LOTS and LOTS of drivers in the kernel for which this is true, probably MOST of them.

    "it's just another layer of complexity" - NOT if you don't install the userland packages or load the kernel module.

    "Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.

    A closed mouth gathers no foot.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday December 10, 2009 @11:13PM (#30398082) Journal
    I suspect that, like so many things, while there is room for the best way, there is a great deal of room for the "reasonably good and a whole lot cheaper" way.

    A whole lot of progress in modern IT, especially on the server side, is less about exceeding the architectural sophistication of 70s-80s UNIX systems and mainframes, and more about making some of those capabilities available on sucktastic x86s.
  • Re:Oh c'mon now... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by ToasterMonkey (467067) on Friday December 11, 2009 @12:31AM (#30398378) Homepage

    There wis a local mid-sized company which recently migrated their workstations from Windows XP to Linux. Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice...it did everything they needed to do, and it was free!

    Productivity dropped sharply shortly after the migration. No prob, everybody thought, just a temporary result of the learning curve. Rolling out a standard backup image was a huge hassle because there were different brands and models of workstations.

    Updates would break the entire operating system and the IT staff had to hire temps just to fix driver problems and roll the dice editing config files. Users were complaining about having to sit aside all day while their workstations were being "fixed". Users were becoming frustrated with not knowing how to do anything without getting "file permissions" errors, and some of them threatened to quit altogether after a training session showed them how to use the terminal to navigate to a word document and use sudo to open it, while the same action would have been only a double-click on Windows. It took 5 months before the computers were perfectly configured and everybody got the hang of using Linux, but it still didn't solve the problem of random OS lockups which caused a lot of lost data.

    Why is Linux still locking up? Windows fixed that problem years ago with 2k/XP!

    Uhhh,, "-1 Truth Hurts" ?

  • by eyepeepackets (33477) on Friday December 11, 2009 @12:35AM (#30398394)

    They are called modules for a reason: You can add or remove at will, including whether or not you bother to build them at all. To say modules are "built into the kernel" is incorrect; module code is included with the kernel source code, but the modules themselves are only built and used if you choose.

    As concerns the "insanity" of configuring a kernel, here again you have a choice: Use Ubuntu. But if you want a fast, lean, mean machine you really do want to craft your kernel to fit your specific needs.

  • Re:Linux FS rocks (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11, 2009 @01:29AM (#30398612)

    As soon as you're paying for Oracle RAC, you're so far gone from the Realm of Cheap that saving some bucks with DRBD isn't a concern any more.

  • Re:Oh c'mon now... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Friday December 11, 2009 @04:07AM (#30399164)

    I've been using linux as my main OS for the past 6 to 7 years and in all this time I never experienced any linux lockup., not even back in the beginning where we couldn't do away with compiling software by hand (where the "you need to know how to program to use linux!" was born) and when the only way to make my DSL modem work was to run a weird, convoluted shell script through the command line. So, that "lockup" accusation is, at least, very odd, particularly in this day and age.

    Moreover, that weird accusation of "file permissions errors" and the need to have IT staff hired with the sole purpose of "fixing drivers" and "edit config files" also sounds like bullshit to me, specially in today's world and even after the GP stated that their workstations worked with XP and win2k, a pair of OSes which are more problematic, less stable and with a less extensive hardware support than today's popular linux distributions.

    And of course, let's not forget that the GP made a point in launching that long-winded anti-linux troll while intentionally keeping out fundamental details such as what linux distribution was supposed to be installed, not to mention that it was posted anonymously. To put it in other words, the GP wrote that post intending to attack the entire linux world, insinuating that that sort of problem affects each and all distros and not a specific one, and it did it so intending to be a troll.

    So, it would only be seen as "-1 truth hurts" if you didn't read the post and you also considered a "your mother is a whore" type of post as "-1 truth hurts". It's not, it is meant to insult and it is perfectly void of any objective statement.

  • by adolf (21054) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Friday December 11, 2009 @04:20AM (#30399220) Journal

    These days, at least.

    15 years ago, it might have been largely done using a lot of custom logic on custom hardware, not software running on general-purpose hardware as is the norm these days.

    General purpose computing has come a long way in the past 1.5 decades.

  • Re:Linux FS rocks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11, 2009 @08:47AM (#30400384)

    That's not a licensing problem with ZFS. That's a licensing problem with Linux. ZFS integrated perfectly well with FreeBSD, license-wise.

"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths

Working...