I am hopeful that 3.4 will go much further in this regard. At this point, when anyone asks me about VM image management, I tell them it works for some and not for others. I've seen enough bad outcomes to not recommend it in all cases, but I've also seen enough good outcomes to not discount it out-of-hand either. My answer now is the same as it has been: use at your own risk. But we've made much progress, and the recent qemu integration and libgfapi is a continuation of that. In general, I don't recommend any distributed filesystems for VM images, but I can also see that this is the wave of the future. -JM Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: Dan Cyr wrote: > > Miles - As is right now GlusterFS is not what you want for backend VM > storage. > > Question: ?how well will this work? > > Answer: ?horribly? > > Ok... that's the kind of answer I was looking for (though a disappointing one). Thanks, Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users at gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
