Mark Mielke wrote: > For Daniel: For the seems crazy, compared to what? Every time I look at > other solutions such as Lustre and see how they rely on a single > metadata server, that itself is supposed to be highly available using > other means, I have to ask, are they really solving the highly > availability problem, or are they just narrowing the scope? If the whole > For "shared nothing", each node really does need to be fully independent > and able to make its own decisions. I think the GlusterFS folk have the > model right in this regard. > > The remaining question is whether they have the *implementation* right. :-) You're taking my statement too far. :) All i meant was that i don't think the clients should be responsible for replication - that, in my mind, is the job of the servers. Basically, i *like* it when the clients are independant, and the servers work together - not the other way around. That's all. -- Daniel Maher <dma+gluster at witbe.net>
