Which is why we don't run Rodigux On 03/11/2013 12:02 PM, Rodrigo Severo wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Bryan Whitehead <driver at megahappy.net > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org> > http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130311/80e9272b/attachment-0001.html>
