As an end user and non-developer, I don't have much to add from the dev side of things. However all of the discussion in this thread has prompted me to throw in my 2c. As a sysadmin running 856TB of GlusterFS in production, I believe the 3.X way of dealing with things (glusterd, dynamic) is far easier/better than the 2.X way (config files, static). We have a comprehensive Puppet setup in place, so configuration management isn't the issue for us (we solved that problem ages ago). The problem is being able to make dynamic changes to a running system without affecting users working on the system. Our business is 24x7 (like so many these days), and downtime (scheduled or otherwise) needs to be kept to a minimum just to survive the current economic climate. I flat out do not agree with the "3.X is bloatware, go back to 2.X config files" points above. Indeed, the change to a more dynamic 3.X/glusterd model was exactly what prompted me to take GlusterFS seriously as a real world solution to our storage problems. Even within the first few weeks of a production rollout, the dynamic management aspects of 3.X saved us a world of pain, and kept our business moving. That's all I really have to add. I'm watching this thread with interest. It sounds like Gluster dev is in good hands, and the right sorts of discussions are being had out in the open. My confidence in the project remains very high. -Dan