Hello, please take a look at the next version of the High Level Design specification for the Write-Back Cache subsystem, that has Use Cases and Logical Specification sections fleshed out. I''d appreciate any comments, especially on the topics marked with "Q!" on a margin. Peter, can you please take a look at the description of a security hole on page 10? Nikita. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: wbc-hld.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 128230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel/attachments/20080218/a0032b99/attachment-0004.pdf
Hi Nikita, LLNL highly encouraged us to consider all of the failure use cases for WBC. I haven''t looked at the HLD in detail, so perhaps this already addressed sufficiently. I would advise asking LLNL explicitly for an inspection. Cheers, Bojanic On 2008-02-18, at 14:49 , Nikita Danilov wrote:> Hello, > > please take a look at the next version of the High Level Design > specification for the Write-Back Cache subsystem, that has Use Cases > and > Logical Specification sections fleshed out. > > I''d appreciate any comments, especially on the topics marked with "Q!" > on a margin. > > Peter, can you please take a look at the description of a security > hole > on page 10? > > Nikita. > <wbc-hld.pdf>
Peter Bojanic writes: > Hi Nikita, Hello Peter, > > LLNL highly encouraged us to consider all of the failure use cases for > WBC. I haven''t looked at the HLD in detail, so perhaps this already > addressed sufficiently. I would advise asking LLNL explicitly for an > inspection. OK, I shall. > > Cheers, > Bojanic Nikita. > > On 2008-02-18, at 14:49 , Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > please take a look at the next version of the High Level Design > > specification for the Write-Back Cache subsystem, that has Use Cases > > and > > Logical Specification sections fleshed out. > > > > I''d appreciate any comments, especially on the topics marked with "Q!" > > on a margin. > > > > Peter, can you please take a look at the description of a security > > hole > > on page 10?