jdarcy at redhat.com
Tue May 8 00:43:31 UTC 2012
On 05/07/2012 06:17 PM, Ian Latter wrote:
> Is there anything written up on why you/all want every
> node to be completely conscious of every other node?
> I could see a couple of architectures that might work
> better (be more scalable) if the config minutiae were
> either not necessary to be shared or shared in only
> cases where the config minutiae were a dependency.
Well, these aren't exactly minutiae. Everything at file or directory level is
fully distributed and will remain so. We're talking only about stuff at the
volume or server level, which is very little data but very broad in scope.
Trying to segregate that only adds complexity and subtracts convenience,
compared to having it equally accessible to (or through) any server.
> RE ZK, I have an issue with it not being a binary at
> the linux distribution level. This is the reason I don't
> currently have Gluster's geo replication module in
> place ..
What exactly is your objection to interpreted or JIT compiled languages?
Performance? Security? It's an unusual position, to say the least.
More information about the Gluster-devel