Gordan Bobic wrote:
Shehjar Tikoo wrote:
The answer to that lies in another question, "why would anyone use
a standardized NFS over GlusterFS?"
Here are three points from pnfs.com on why:
1. Ensures Interoperability among vendor solutions
2. Allows Choice of best-of-breed products
3. Eliminates Risks of deploying proprietary technology
Argument 3 is largely shot down by the fact that "proprietary
technology" is still deployed on the server side. In my experience with
large, change-resistant entities the difficulty is in getting something
approved for use in the first place. Once you get it approved for the
back end, the front end isn't nearly as difficult.
And besides, the risk is all down to the implementation and the maturity
thereof, not the protocol itself. Deploying a new, immature NFS server
is no more risky than deploying a different, equally immature protocol
stack.
I'll add a fourth one:
Familiarity of the protocol, is very important, especially
in the storage world, where conservatism is preferred over
fancy technology. NFS has been tried and tested over 2 decades.
But not backed by a proprietary file system that has only been around
for a short time. These arguments are not in the full context. You are,
in effect, saying that the NFS client itself won't have to be debugged,
when you are in fact adding an additional layer of complexity to debug
where it is most counter-productive. There is still the glusterfs client
to debug underneath on the server side, only it is now glazed over by
the NFS export translator. The conservatism you mention is there for one
reason alone - stability; and I don't see how it can possibly be argued
that adding another layer of complexity would somehow aid stability.
I accept that there is no counter-argument against "paying customers
absolutely, explicitly want this feature" - I'm merely questioning the
purely technical aspect of the approach.
Those are all good points, and ones which every deployment must
debate for itself. On this list, we could go on arguing such pros and
cons, but in addition to the over-riding point you mentioned about
paying customers, is that from experience we know that one size does
not fit all and consequently we cannot afford to provide a
GlusterFS-only interface.
-Shehjar
Gordan
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
