[Gluster-devel] Regression tests: Should we test non-XFS too?

[Vijay Bellur]

On 05/19/2014 06:56 AM, Dan Mons wrote:
> On 15 May 2014 14:35, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> it is up to those developers and users to test their preferred combination.
>>
>
> Not sure if this was quoting me or someone else.  BtrFS is in-tree for
> most distros these days, and RHEL is putting it in as a "technology
> preview" in 7, which likely means it'll be supported in a point
> release down the road somewhere.  My question was merely if that's
> going to be a bigger emphasis for Gluster.org folks to test into the
> future, or if XFS is going to remain the default/recommended for a lot
> longer yet.
>
> If the answer is "it depends on our customers' needs", then put me
> down as one who needs something better than XFS.  I'll happily put in
> the hard yards to test BtrFS with GlusterFS, but at the same time I'm
> keen to know if that's a wise use of my time or a complete waste of my
> time if I'm deviating too far from what RedHat/Gluster.org is planning
> on blessing in the future.

 From a gluster.org perspective, btrfs is certainly very interesting. 
Integrating with btrfs and exposing its capabilities like bitrot, 
snapshots etc. through glusterfs is on the cards.

There have been few reports of using glusterfs over btrfs in the 
community. I would definitely be interested in hearing more feedback and 
addressing issues in this combination by collaborating with the btrfs 
community.

Regards,
Vijay