[Gluster-devel] priorities

[Anand Babu Periasamy]

We have GlusterFS in production on OpenSolaris / X4500 environment. We do not have access 
to systems running Solaris and our experience with Solaris is also limited. With limited 
resources, it is hard to support uncommon / proprietary environments. We are also working 
aggressively on stabilizing 1.4. Please do not feel that you are ignored. We fully
understand the value of community behind GlusterFS.

Is is possible to provide us remote access?

--
Anand Babu Periasamy
GPG Key ID: 0x62E15A31
Blog [http://ab.freeshell.org]
GlusterFS [http://www.gluster.org]
The GNU Operating System [http://www.gnu.org]



rhubbell wrote:
> Thanks Dan for the synopsis.
> 
> I wish I could experience a bug. (^;
> I'm unable to even build the software on Solaris 10 Sparc.
> 
> I've seen a lot of software in production environments but when
> a product has issues just compiling we usually don't put it on
> our short-list of potential solutions.
> 
> I had some hope when I first found gluster and saw there was
> activity.  But it seems with the commercial leaning of the product
> that priorities are shifting. I've seen it in lots of other 
> projects. Just an observation, not making a morality or ethic
> call.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 11:43 -0800, Dan Parsons wrote:
>> I'm not really the best person to answer this question but I'll try  
>> anyway.
>>
>> There is a commercial entity behind glusterfs - ZResearch(.com) of  
>> which most/all of the developers are employed by. The developers are  
>> (imo) very good and quick to respond to nearly every problem, it's  
>> just this one particular issue where a response/fix has been a bit slow.
>>
>> glusterfs is moving from 1.3.x to 1.4.x with some fundamental changes  
>> involved but I don't think it's the same as what you mean by  
>> "transitional state".
>>
>> The product has been extremely stable for me (8gbit/s IO spread across  
>> 4 servers to 33 cpu nodes, bioinformatics work) and this memory "bug"  
>> hasn't caused a crash under real work yet, just testing, but only  
>> because our job input size is currently small.
>>
>> So in summary, I love glusterfs, the devs/company behind it are solid,  
>> it performs better for my work than others (pvfs, lustre) - it's just  
>> this one io-cache memory bug that's been getting less-than-average  
>> attention, and perhaps with this recent spark in attention that will  
>> change :)
>>
>>
>> Dan Parsons
>>
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2008, at 11:20 AM, rhubbell wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 19:55 +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 10:08:24AM -0800, Dan Parsons wrote:
>>>>> Lukas, just to confirm your findings, I have the exact same  
>>>>> problem and
>>>>> reported it about 2 months ago. Just like you, when all my stuff was
>>>>> running under 32-bit, it wasn't an issue because of the 2GB limit,  
>>>>> but
>>>>> now that I'm using 64-bit for everything, it is a potential system
>>>>> crashing bug.
>>>> Yes, it's the same, unfortunately, I have no response from the  
>>>> authors. So
>>>> nobody cares?
>>>>
>>> Well somebody cares.  Us.  But I am new here and wondering how
>>> development on this project is funded. Is it all volunteer?
>>> Partially funded via commercial offerings?
>>>
>>> Is the project in a transitional state? Soon to go commercial?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>>> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>