On Jan 8, 2013 8:50 AM, "Stephan von Krawczynski" <skraw at ithnet.com> wrote: > > Yes, I mind. > The problem with this kind of bugs is that you cannot describe reproduction. > Which makes them pretty useless as bug reports. > They can therefore only contain the information that such situations are seen, > but not much else. And me and others have told that continously over the years > on the lists. > Take 4 physical boxes and check out some damage situations (switch bricks off > and on), you will see the described problems within a day. > You only need bonnie and ls to find out. I don't doubt that you've seen this behavior. But what do you honestly expect us to do in cases where we don't see what you describe? And then in spite of your coding skills you refuse to create an alternative proof of concept that would demonstrate the superiority of your approach. This is why I doubt your sincerity. Your primary reason for hanging out here seems to be so that you can engage in schadenfreude and tell us 'I told you so.' Is there another reasonable conclusion that I'm missing? -JM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20130108/c7fb02ab/attachment.html>
