Dear JM, unfortunately one has to tell openly that the whole concept that is tried here is simply wrong. The problem is not the next-bug-to-fix. The problem is the client strategy in user space. It is broken by design. You can either believe this or go ahead ignoring it and never really get a good and stable setup. Really, the whole we-close-our-eyes-and-hope-it-will-turn-out-well strategy looks just like btrfs. Read the archives, I told them years ago it will not work out in our life time. And today, still they have no ready-for-production fs, and believe me: it never will be there. And the same goes for glusterfs. It _could_ be the greatest fs on earth, but only if you accept: 1) Throw away all non-linux code. Because this war is over since long. 2) Make a kernel based client/server implementation. Because it is the only way to acceptable performance. 3) Implement true undelete feature. Make delete a move to a deleted-files area. These are the minimal steps to take for a real success, everything else is just beating the dead horse. Regards, Stephan On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:03:10 -0500 (EST) John Mark Walker <johnmark at redhat.com> wrote: > Look, fuse its issues that we all know about. Either it works for you or it doesn't. If fuse bothers you that much, look into libgfapi. > > Re: NFS - I'm trying to help track this down. Please either add your comment to an existing bug or create a new ticket. > > Either way, ranting won't solve your problem or inspire anyone to fix it. > > -JM > > > Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw at ithnet.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:04:09 -0800 > Joe Julian <joe at julianfamily.org> wrote: > > > It would probably be better to ask this with end-goal questions instead > > of with a unspecified "critical feature" list and "performance problems". > > > > 6 months ago, for myself and quite an extensive (and often impressive) > > list of users there were no missing critical features nor was there any > > problems with performance. That's not to say that they did not meet your > > design specifications, but without those specs you're the only one who > > could evaluate that. > > Well, then the list of users does obviously not contain me ;-) > The damn thing will only become impressive if a native kernel client module is > done. FUSE is really a pain. > And read my lips: the NFS implementation has general load/performance problems. > Don't be surprised if it jumps into your face. > Why on earth do they think linux has NFS as kernel implementation? > -- > Regards, > Stephan > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >
