Il 12 nov 2016 9:04 PM, "Alex Crow" <acrow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
IMHO GlusterFS would be a great
> product if it tried to:
>
> a) Add less features per release, and/or slowing down the release cycle.
> Maybe have a "Feature"
> those that need to try new, well, features.
> b) Concentrate on issues like split-brain, healing, and scaling online
> without data loss. Seems to be a common theme on the list where healing
> doesn't work without tinkering. It should really "just work".
> c) Have a peek at BeeGFS. It's a very well-performing FS that has its
> focus on HPC. You can't stand to lose many thousands of CPU-hours of
> work if your FS goes down, and it has to be fast.
>
> The biggest question for me is what is the target market for GlusterFS?
> Is it:
>
> HPC (performance, reliability on the large scale, ie loss of one file is
> OK, all not, no funky features)
> VM storage (much the same as HPC but large file performance required,no
> loss or corruption of blocks within a file)
> General File (medium performance OK, small file and random access
> paramount, resilience and consistency need to be 99.999%, features such
> as ACLs and XATTRs, snapshots required)
>
> i think if the documentation/wiki addressed these questions it would
> make it easier for newcomers to evaluate the product.
Totally agree
> This needs to be a warning or clearly documented. If you lose a couple
> of PB of data in a professional role, I'd not fancy your employment
> prospects. I've always had the feeling that GlusterFS is a bit of a
> playground for new features and the only way to really have a stable
> storage system is to stump up the cash to RedHat (and we've purchased a
> lot of RHEL/RHEV licences), but having so many problems in the community
> version really even puts me off buying the full package!
>
Again, totally agree
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
