[Gluster-devel] Performance Translators' Stability and Usefulness

Michael Cassaniti m.cassaniti at gmail.com
Mon Jul 6 08:36:42 UTC 2009

If anyone has kept up with Samba development, they reworked their code and
how they write their code for the 4.x series. This was because the
development team felt the code was somewhat unstructured and not as
transparent. They also now have an IDL compiler available.

If the Samba team are anything to go by as far as how code should be
developed in an open source environment, then perhaps it is time GlusterFS
did take a look at this and follow the example. I for one wouldn't want to
see a project I began be too difficult for others to debug or add features
to because I had let the code become too convoluted. And without sufficent
code commenting? What are you thinking?

2009/7/6 Geoff Kassel <gkassel at users.sourceforge.net>

> Hi Filipe,
>   I think if the GlusterFS devs actually implement the QA process they've
> (allegedly) had since September last year, that would go a long way to
> improving stability and reliability across the whole application.
>   If the QA process as described on the Wiki was actually implemented, we
> would most likely not see two critical data corruption bugs in two
> consecutive major releases, and functionality like DHT and AFR that has
> been
> around for years might have a chance of working as described.
>   As much as I would like to see features like active self-heal and
> non-stop
> I/O, perhaps it's time for a GlusterFS feature freeze.
>   During this freeze they could do a proper human-eyeballs-on-code style
> code
> review and get their QA processes and testing frameworks developed
> properly.
> In doing so, hopefully provide us with the kind of reliability and
> stability
> that we should see in a piece of software with the 2.x tag.
>   Heck, maybe they could even submit their project to Coverity for
> analysis,
> like I've suggested before. It *is* free for open source projects, and the
> results come highly regarded.
> Geoff.
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Filipe Maia wrote:
> > I strongly agree with both Gordan and Geoff when it comes to stability.
> > I've been trying to get a simple unify setup (now dht) working to
> > replace my existing nfs file servers and i'm yet to achieve the
> > necessary stability.
> > This kind of feature has long been in GlusterFS and should be stable
> > enough by now, but according to my experience that is not the case.
> > I would urge the GlusterFS developers to focus on stability above all
> > else because that is an absolutely essential quality for a software to
> > be usable, specially one as critical as a file system.
> >
> > Filipe
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20090706/fc18fdf7/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list