[Gluster-devel] Glusterd: A New Hope
vidar at hokstad.com
Mon Mar 25 19:55:30 UTC 2013
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Alex Attarian <u2sashko at gmail.com> wrote:
> where do you get the idea that I'm against glusterd? I'm perfectly fine
> with 3.x versions, those are still maintainable. But if you want to add
> Zookeper now, on top of Java requirement, where is it going to end?
I think it's really clear that Jeff understands the concern with Zookeeper
from his earlier answers.
> Right now things are very easy to maintain in any of the 3.x versions,
> right inside glusterd. Why not keep that? Even all these other
> functionalities that others want and you really want to implement for
> scalability and flexibility, they could all be built with your cluster on
> gluster solution.
> I really don't want to worry about Zookeeper or Doozer when I run gluster.
> Can we at least consider that approach?
It sounds like they understand that we as users care about simplicity. In
terms of Doozer, the idea is growing on me. It's less than 1500 lines of
very readable Go code. We could get a lot worse, and while I'm partial to
the "Gluster on Gluster" idea I don't know enough of the issues to say if
it's a good idea. It could very well be that it'd work great, but I'm also
sympathetic to the desire not to want to maintain this code if they don't
have to. In that respect Doozer seems small and simple enough that it'd be
easy to package up so it'd be transparent for users.
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/25/2013 12:44 PM, Alex Attarian wrote:
>>> Adding more complexity means only making it a nightmare for
>>> I've said this times and times and I will say it again, your
>>> documentation has
>>> always been bad, out of respect I'm not calling it shit. If you had
>>> taken your
>>> time and grabbed a random admin and watched him set up a system, you
>>> cried for him. Until this day I don't understand why you haven't taken
>>> the time
>>> to sit down and write a good documentation so more people can use
>>> Instead what happens is people come look at the site, look at the docs
>>> examples, and run away.
>> Look, I'm not here to solve a documentation problem. I've done more than
>> any other developer on that front already. I'm also not here to explain
>> the difference between the GlusterFS community project and the Red Hat
>> Storage product, or enumerate the features that *people have demanded*
>> which make the project more complex. Wrong forum, wrong time, maybe wrong
>> guy. I'm trying to solve a specific set of technical problems in a
>> component that most of our users appreciate. Being able to form a cluster
>> and export a volume with three commands from one CLI (probe, create, start)
>> is not something we're going to throw away. People who want to build its
>> equivalent themselves are a tiny minority insufficient to sustain the
>> If you disagree with the very idea of having glusterd, then *we have
>> nothing to talk about*. If you appreciate the infrastructure it provides,
>> if you want to make that infrastructure as robust and scalable and
>> convenient to use as possible, then by all means share your ideas or
>> opinions on ideas that have already been presented. The other users who
>> have participated constructively don't deserve to be crowded out of the
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gluster-devel