On 02/04/2010 11:17 AM, Daniel Maher wrote: > Hello, > > After reading through the documentation related to Gluster 3, Fuse, > and the (new'ish) Booster option, i find myself a little bit cloudy on > exactly what their respective relationships are - in particular, how > Booster fits into the picture. > > Is Booster a replacement for Fuse ? The documentation - especially > the section entitled ? Configuring Booster to Use Alone ? - would seem > to suggest this is the case. > > If this is true, is Fuse still required for client operations ? > Server operations ? If yes, what is the relationship of Fuse to > Booster ? If no, why are we bothering with Fuse at all, given the > performance problems and such ? > > Thank you for your feedback. > > Booster is an accelerator that can reduce dependency on fuse. In particular, there are system calls that booster does not catch, and in these cases, having fuse running can be a good backup in case one of these system calls do get executed. Some applications may run with booster stand-alone without fuse, but based on the system call list, and my knowledge of how commonly used libraries such as glibc perform private linking to prevent applications such as booster from overriding system calls through symbol table overrides, that the list is pretty narrow. Perhaps Apache using only basic modules will work. Will higher level modules such as PHP work? This depends on how they load scripts. If they use STDIO/fopen() in particular, I believe it will not work, as booster does not override fopen() (the last time I checked?), and fopen() may call system call open() using a private linking table that booster cannot override. Cheers, mark -- Mark Mielke<mark at mielke.cc>