On 2014-09-04 13:08, Kaleb KEITHLEY wrote: > On 09/04/2014 06:49 AM, Santosh Pradhan wrote: >> Hi, Currently GlusterFS is tightly coupled with ext(2/3/4) and XFS. >> Zfs (ZOL) and Btrfs are not supported at the moment, may get >> supported in future (at least btrfs). >> >> Thanks, Santosh >> >> >> On 09/04/2014 03:34 PM, Justin Clift wrote: >>> On 28/08/2014, at 9:30 AM, Kiran Patil wrote: >>>> Hi Gluster Devs, >>>> >>>> I ran the Gluster Test Framework on Gluster+zfs stack and found >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> I would like to know if I need to submit a bug at Redhat >>>> Bugzilla since the stack has zfs, which is not supported by >>>> Redhat or Fedora if I am not wrong? >>> Definitely create an issue on the Red Hat Bugzilla, for the >>> "GlusterFS" "product" ;> there: >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=GlusterFS >>> >>> Since it's for the upstream Community, the official Red Hat >>> "Supported" list isn't super relevant. >>> > > There is no officially blessed file system for Community GlusterFS. > The only requirement is that the file system support extended > attributes. And that it does not use 64-bit offsets, as can be seen in http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-July/041604.html I've had bad experiences with replication and ext4 :-( The design considerations in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838784 are to me quite dubious: However both these filesystmes (EXT4 more importantly) are "tolerant" in terms of the accuracy of the value presented back in seekdir(). i.e, a seekdir(val) actually seeks to the entry which has the "closest" true offset. This "two-prong" scheme exploits this behavior - which seems to be the best middle ground amongst various approaches and has all the advantages of the old approach: - Works against XFS and EXT4, the two most common filesystems out there. (which wasn't an "advantage" of the old approach as it is borken against EXT4) - Probably works against most of the others as well. The ones which would NOT work are those which return HUGE d_offs _and_ NOT tolerant to seekdir() to "closest" true offset. > > As a guide to best practice, you may wish to look at what Red Hat > officially supports for RHS GlusterFS — that is XFS. As you might > expect, that gets the most testing and likely has the fewest bugs > related to it. But people are successfully using other file systems, > e.g. ffs on NetBSD and FreeBSD, HFS+ on Mac OS X, and btrfs and zfs > on Linux. > > You may certainly file bugs against Community GlusterFS with zfs. I > will warn you though that due to various legal and political > realities, probably (certainly) none of the Red Hat employees that > work on GlusterFS will be able to devote time to it. > > If you fix the bugs you find, please submit your fix in Gerrit. We > will certainly accept fixes for legitimate bugs regardless of which > file system you use. Our development workflow is described here > http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Development_Work_Flow. > /Anders -- Anders Blomdell Email: anders.blomdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Department of Automatic Control Lund University Phone: +46 46 222 4625 P.O. Box 118 Fax: +46 46 138118 SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
