[Gluster-devel] GlusterFS 4.0 round two?

[Anand Avati]

I agree. I will send out a spin of the 2nd draft soon. Have been caught up
in a bunch of other stuff.

Avati


On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Amar Tumballi <amarts at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Jeffrey Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I know we're all busy with other things, but it has been a little over a
>> month
>> since this discussion started.  There are a lot of really good comments
>> on the
>> Google Docs version (http://goo.gl/qLw3Vz) and we're at risk of "losing
>> our
>> place" if we don't try to keep things going.  In particular, the issue of
>> how
>> these plans relate to 3.6 feature planning, which also needs to conclude
>> soon.
>> To pick a couple of examples:
>>
>> * There's a 3.6 item to make glusterd more scalable, but there are many
>> more
>>   scalability issues that need to be addressed and the later 4.0 proposal
>>   tries to tackle a few.  Should we even try to address scalability in the
>>   3.x series, or just leave it entirely to 4.x?  If we try to do both, how
>>   should we resolve the incompatibilities that the second proposal
>> introduces
>>   relative to the first?
>>
>> * One of the hottest 3.6 items is tiering, data classification, whatever
>> you
>>   want to call it.  I say it's hot because everyone else - e.g. Ceph,
>> HDFS,
>>   Swift - has recognized this as an important feature and they're all
>> making
>>   significant moves here.  Again, the 4.0 proposal contains some ideas
>> that
>>   touch on this, not always compatible with earlier ideas.  Which should
>> we
>>   work on, and how should we address their differences?
>>
>> If we don't complete the discussions about 4.0, we won't be able to reach
>> any
>> reasonable conclusions about when/how it should diverge from 3.x.  Should
>> we
>> set a deadline for a second draft and/or an IRC meeting to discuss the
>> comments
>> we've already collected?
>>
>>
> +1
>
> It is very important to keep momentum for this, otherwise, the amount of
> work planned for 4.0 would never be 'done'. Also, would be very important
> to track the deadlines as an action item in every weekly IRC meeting.
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20140130/928a0cc1/attachment-0001.html>