[Twg] no TWG today (6/14/2012)

[John Carrier]

Hi all,

We will not have a TWG meeting today.   The Board has not yet made a decision on our recommendation concerning the 2012 requirements we submitted.

There have been a couple of questions raised by Board members.  The issues and our proposed resolution are below.


1)      Order of requirements in the "gathered requirements" section
As I mentioned in a previous email, I rearranged the categories and requirements within each category to match the order described in our "recommendations" section.


2)      2011 Required Rates and Capacities
The table was created as part of our 2011 requirements investigation.  I saved it as an appendix so that work wouldn't be lost.  Some of the Board members want us to update the table to reflect current limits, since some of the data there is no longer accurate.  For example, the Lustre 2.2 column was a best guess in 2011 and could be updated with real data now that 2.2 is released.

Do we need to spend the time updating the table?  I proposed to the board that we delete the table from the appendix and revise it as part of next year's requirements document.   What do you think?


3)      Lack of explicit recommendations
Last year there was broad agreement that metadata performance was the single category requiring the greatest effort.  This year there were several categories fairly equally represented in the members' top 10 picks.  Our recommendation was to have OpenSFS initiate projects in each of the top four categories so that we can make incremental progress on all fronts this year rather than choosing just one category and waiting until next year to address the other categories.

However, if the Board prefers to focus on just one category, then "File system availability and robustness" was the very clear winner this year, as the voting spreadsheet shows (http://goo.gl/Lqg7s).  Some of the LNET work could be embodied under this umbrella since LNET contributes to availability and robustness of Lustre.   I have asked the Board to clarify if they require this refinement.

The current version of the doc is on google docs  (http://goo.gl/63u9Q).    Please send feedback to the lists.

--jc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensfs.org/pipermail/twg_lists.opensfs.org/attachments/20120614/05da1b57/attachment.html>