On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:27:45 -0400 Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/22/2013 02:20 PM, Anand Avati wrote:e > > The point is that it was never a question of performance - it was to > > just get basic functionality "working". > > > I stand corrected. Here's the amended statement. > > "The need for some change here is keenly felt right now as we struggle > to fix all of the race conditions that have resulted from the hasty > addition of synctasks to make up for poor event handling elsewhere in > that 44K lines of C." I have never heard a longer version of "we give up, because the code is BS". Sorry, but for me it feels like you should just throw away the whole 3.X series and re-implement the self-heal design - which is ok - based on top of 2.X and _use config files_. Your whole pseudo-automatism around glusterfsd is just bloatware. And to me it looks you just failed to survive your self-created complexity, exactly what I told you months ago. "We can't do it, so lets pile the sh*t before someone else's home..." WTF... Why is it you cannot accept that it should be a _filesystem_, and nothing else? It would have been a lot better to care about stability, keep it simple and feel fine. Concentrate on the strength (client based replication setups) and forget the rest. Sorry, someone has to tell you... beat me. -- Regards, Stephan
