On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:27:19 -0400 Alvin Starr <alvin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [me] > This is an amazingly unreasonable comment. > First off ALL distributed file systems are slower than non-distributed > file systems. Obviously you fail to understand my point: the design of glusterfs implies that it can be as fast as a non-distributed fs. If you have not understood this by now you should stay another 10 years on this list. As glusterfs should only read from a single node, and write concurrently to all nodes it must only be slower than a non-distributed fs if your network is not designed according to the needed paths. Glusterfs being slow is not by design but by implementation. > Second ALL network file systems are slower than local hardware. Uh, really no comment. > Kernel inclusion does not make for a radically faster implementation. > I have worked with Kernel included NFS and user space NFS > implementations and the performance differences have not been all that > amazingly radical. Probably you are not talking about linux based NFS experience. The last time we used userspace nfs (very long ago) on linux it was slow _and_ amazingly buggy. Many thanks to Neil that he made kernel nfs what it is today. > If your so convinced that a kernel included file system is the answer > you are free to implement a solution. Well, people were _paid_ for years now and came up with this mess. And you want me to implement it for free in what time? If you give me the bucks that were paid during the last decade you can be sure the solution is a lot better, easier to configure, and thought-through. > I am sure the project maintainers would love to have someone come along > and improve the code. Yes, we perfectly agree on that. -- Regards, Stephan ________ Community Meeting Calendar: Schedule - Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/441850968 Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
