On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Whit Blauvelt <whit.gluster at transpect.com>wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:09:39AM +0530, Amar Tumballi wrote: > > > >I tried it to host Virtual Machines images and it didn't work at all. > Was > > > hoping to be able to spread the IOPS more through the cluster. That's > > > part of what I was trying to say on the email I sent earlier today. > > > > I saw that mail and I agree that the target of 3.3.0 was to make > > glusterfs more stable and get the features which would make Virtual > > machine hosting on GlusterFS a possibility by 3.4.0 time-frame. > > Odd thing is, there have been statements going back a year saying that > Gluster would be ready for VM hosting in the 3.3 version. On the one hand, > it's appreciated that Gluster is pursuing ambitious goals. On the other, > when a goal is dropped from a release that many people are waiting on a > long > time, specifically because of that advertised goal, it would be common > courtesy (and good business practice) to announce the change in target in > all the places where it had previously been stated. Like this list. > > Whit, There has been no drop in goal. There are many parts to "supporting a VM workload". The goals listed for 3.3 are definitely met - to make VMs work good enough (fix self-heal locking issues, some FUSE upstream work for supporting O_DIRECT etc.) However, for 3.4 we have bigger goals of supporting VM image use case in a much better way - libglusterfsclient integration for QEMU etc. This was what Amar was referring to. I hope I clarified your doubt, and apologies for the confusion. Avati -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20120605/b03151d8/attachment.htm>
