----- Original Message ----- > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 04:04:43PM -0500, Jeff Darcy wrote: > > On 01/19/2013 01:43 PM, F. Ozbek wrote: > > >try moosefs. http://www.moosefs.org/ > > > > > >we tried both gluster and ceph, they both failed in many ways. > > >moosefs passed the same tests with flying colors. > > > > > >moose is your friend. > > > > Don't you think it's rather bad form to come on a mailing list for > > one project and recommend a competitor based on FUD? > > To me it sounds to me like he's suggesting an alternative based on > actual > testing and real-world experience. Or are you saying he has an > undisclosed > connection to the moosefs project? I think we have to be careful about how we distinguish between legitimate gripes and trolling. If someone wants to recommend another solution for a particular use case, that's fine - that's just someone being helpful. If, however, somebody makes blanket statements without much in the way of evidence or facts, then it's not very helpful. While I don't fine the moosefs recommendation to be particular helpful, I didn't find it too insulting either. On the other hand, do you see people recommending Fedora on the Ubuntu lists? I would never recommend GlusterFS on the Ceph lists, and you won't find anyone recommending Solaris/Illumos on the Linux Kernel lists. It's just bad form. I usually let it go once without comment, but if it turns into a habit, I'll crack down. -JM
