On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Joe Julian <joe at julianfamily.org> wrote: > Which is why we don't run Rodigux > Oh Joe, that remark sounds rather inappropriate to me. Apparently we disagree on more levels that just kernel and applications compatibility policies. Regards, Rodrigo Severo > > > 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>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 >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing listGluster-users at gluster.orghttp://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/d8818bbb/attachment.html>
