On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:20:48PM -0500, Jeff Darcy wrote: > > I don't love the bit-stealing hack either, but in practice keep in mind > > this all seems to be about ext4. If you want reliable nfs readdir with > > 16M-entry directories and all the rest you can get that already with > > xfs. > > Do we know it's just ext4? That (and ext3) is the only place I've seen the problem. But we're definitely depending on undocumented behavior, so I certainly can't rule out the possibility some other (current or future) filesystem doing something weird. > I'm not even sure that's all of the newer > or less well known Linux file systems are immune, let alone those on > BSD or other platforms where GlusterFS must run. The only other FS that > I'm sure doesn't have this problem is ZFS. My worry is that, to someone > who has already been affected by this, telling them it doesn't happen on > XFS is like pouring salt in the wound. They're more likely to abandon > GlusterFS than embrace XFS. > > *In practice* I believe that ext4 is a reality we must deal with. Any > discussion of this bug's frequency, or of solutions' efficacy, has to > take that into account. If solution X works perfectly on XFS but still > fails regularly on ext4, then for evaluation purposes it's the "fails > regularly" part that counts. A solution Y which fails less regularly > on both platforms might well be preferable, even if it's worse than X > on XFS. Maybe, but that'd have a pretty high bar to clear: we definitely don't want to break existing working xfs setups. --b. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
