I have to agree though, you keep acting like a customer. If you don't like what the developers focus on, you are free to try and offer a bounty to motivate someone to look at what you want, or even better : go and buy a license for one of gluster's commercial alternatives. On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:43:54PM +0200, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to sleep well even after your block. > > Il 29 apr 2017 11:28 PM, "Joe Julian" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > > No, you proposed a wish. A feature needs described behavior, certainly a > > lot more than "it should just know what I want it to do". > > > > I'm done. You can continue to feel entitled here on the mailing list. I'll > > just set my filters to bitbucket anything from you. > > > > On 04/29/2017 01:00 PM, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > > > > I repeat: I've just proposed a feature > > I'm not a C developer and I don't know gluster internals, so I can't > > provide details > > > > I've just asked if simplifying the add brick process is something that > > developers are interested to add > > > > Il 29 apr 2017 9:34 PM, "Joe Julian" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > > >> What I said publicly in another email ... but not to call out my > >> perception of your behavior publicly if also like to say: > >> > >> Acting adversarial doesn't make anybody want to help, especially not me > >> and I'm the user community's biggest proponent. > >> > >> On April 29, 2017 11:08:45 AM PDT, Gandalf Corvotempesta < > >> gandalf.corvotempesta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> Mine was a suggestion > >>> Fell free to ignore was gluster users has to say and still keep going > >>> though your way > >>> > >>> Usually, open source project tends to follow users suggestions > >>> > >>> Il 29 apr 2017 5:32 PM, "Joe Julian" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > >>> > >>>> Since this is an open source community project, not a company product, > >>>> feature requests like these are welcome, but would be more welcome with > >>>> either code or at least a well described method. Broad asks like these are > >>>> of little value, imho. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 04/29/2017 07:12 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Anyway, the proposed workaround: > >>>>> https://joejulian.name/blog/how-to-expand-glusterfs-replicat > >>>>> ed-clusters-by-one-server/ > >>>>> won't work with just a single volume made up of 2 replicated bricks. > >>>>> If I have a replica 2 volume with server1:brick1 and server2:brick1, > >>>>> how can I add server3:brick1 ? > >>>>> I don't have any bricks to "replace" > >>>>> > >>>>> This is something i would like to see implemented in gluster. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2017-04-29 16:08 GMT+02:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta > >>>>> <gandalf.corvotempesta@xxxxxxxxx>: > >>>>> > >>>>>> 2017-04-24 10:21 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri < > >>>>>> pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Are you suggesting this process to be easier through commands, > >>>>>>> rather than > >>>>>>> for administrators to figure out how to place the data? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2016-July/0 > >>>>>>> 27431.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Admin should always have the ability to choose where to place data, > >>>>>> but something > >>>>>> easier should be added, like in any other SDS. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Something like: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> gluster volume add-brick gv0 new_brick > >>>>>> > >>>>>> if gv0 is a replicated volume, the add-brick should automatically add > >>>>>> the new brick and rebalance data automatically, still keeping the > >>>>>> required redundancy level > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In case admin would like to set a custom placement for data, it should > >>>>>> specify a "force" argument or something similiar. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> tl;dr: as default, gluster should preserve data redundancy allowing > >>>>>> users to add single bricks without having to think how to place data. > >>>>>> This will make gluster way easier to manage and much less error prone, > >>>>>> thus increasing the resiliency of the whole gluster. > >>>>>> after all , if you have a replicated volume, is obvious that you want > >>>>>> your data to be replicated and gluster should manage this on it's own. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is this something are you planning or considering for further > >>>>>> implementation? > >>>>>> I know that lack of metadata server (this is a HUGE advantage for > >>>>>> gluster) means less flexibility, but as there is a manual workaround > >>>>>> for adding > >>>>>> single bricks, gluster should be able to handle this automatically. > >>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Gluster-users mailing list > >>>>> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Gluster-users mailing list > >>>> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >>>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
