On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Bryan Whitehead <driver at megahappy.net>wrote: > This is clearly something Linus should support (forcing ext4 fix). There > is an ethos Linus always champions and that is *never* break userspace. > NEVER. Clearly this ext4 change has broken userspace. GlusterFS is not in > the kernel at all and this change has broken it. > Apparently one year after the change having made into the kernel you believe this argument is still relevant. I don't, really don't. Rodrigo Severo > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Severo < > rodrigo at fabricadeideias.com> wrote: > >> If you prefer to say that Linus recent statement isn't pertinent to >> Gluster x ext4 issue (as I do), or that ext4 developers are being >> hypocritical/ignoring Linus orientation (as you do) or anything similar >> isn't really relevant any more. >> >> This argument could have been important in March 2012, the month the ext4 >> change as applied. Today, March 2013, or Gluster devs decides to assume >> it's incompatible with ext4 and states it clearly in it's installations and >> migration documentation, or fixes it's current issues with ext4. No matter >> what is done, it should have been done months ago. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Rodrigo Severo >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM, John Mark Walker <johnmark at redhat.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> I know where this statement came from. I believe you are both: >>> >>> - trying to apply some statement on a context it's not pertinent to >>> and >>> >>> >>> No, it's actually quite applicable. I'm aware of the context of that >>> statement by Linus, and it applies to this case. Kernel devs, at least the >>> ext4 maintainers, are being hypocritical. >>> >>> There were a few exchanges between Ted T'so and Avati, among other >>> people, on gluster-devel. I highly recommend you read them: >>> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gluster-devel/2013-02/msg00050.html >>> >>> >>> >>> - fouling yourself and/or others arguing that this issue will/should >>> be fixed in the kernel. >>> >>> >>> This is probably true. I'm *this* close to declaring that, at least for >>> the Gluster community, ext4 is considered harmful. There's a reason Red Hat >>> started pushing XFS over ext4 a few years ago. >>> >>> And Red Hat isn't alone here. >>> >>> The ext4 hash size change was applied in the kernel an year ago. I don't >>> believe it will be undone. Gluster developers could argue that this change >>> was hard on them, and that it shouldn't be backported to Enterprise kernels >>> but after one year not having fixed it is on Gluster developers. Arguing >>> otherwise seems rather foolish to me. >>> >>> >>> I think that's a legitimate argument to make. This is a conversation >>> that is worth taking up on gluster-devel. But I'm not sure what can be done >>> about it, seeing as how the ext4 maintainers are not likely to make the >>> change. >>> >>> Frankly, dropping ext4 as an FS we can recommend solves a lot of >>> headaches. >>> >>> -JM >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-users mailing list >> Gluster-users at gluster.org >> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20130311/7ecea36d/attachment.html>
