On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 04:20:58PM -0500, Jeff Darcy wrote: > > Maybe, but that'd have a pretty high bar to clear: we definitely don't > > want to break existing working xfs setups. > > Darn right it's a high bar. Is a single failed readdir under truly > exceptional (and so far only theoretical) conditions "breakage"? You're talking about the server-reboot case here? I think failures would be fairly easy to reproduce there, but without knowing what exactly is proposed it's hard to be sure. > If so, > every distributed file system ever - including NFS - is broken in a > hundred ways. The severe and persistent errors that people have > actually seen on ext4 matter. If we say that we won't make even the > smallest compromise on XFS behavior to fix them, we might as well come > right out and say that ext4 users can go rot. I'm not willing to say > that. I'd rather fix users' problems, in-tree if I can but out-of-tree > if I have to. > > I've said my piece. Others can decide. Merry Christmas. Apologies for giving the impression that I've chosen a side here. I absolutely don't claim to know what the best approach is. Mainly I'd just like to see a sketch of the design with a good description of the failure cases so we're sure we understand the tradeoffs. --b. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
