[Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?

[Jeff Darcy]

On 05/20/2011 09:51 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance Jeff, but it is obvious to anyone having used glusterfs
> for months or years that the guys have a serious software design issue.

No, it is not. I've been using and watching its development for years,
I know its code far better than you ever could, and I disagree. That's
one counterexample disproving "anyone" right there.  Don't try to bluff me
with risible appeals to non-existent authority.

> If you
> look at the "tuning" options configurable in glusterfs you should notice that
> most of them are just an outcome of not being able to find a working i.e. best
> solution for a problem. cache-timeout? thread-count? quick-read?
> stat-prefetch?

Are you seriously saying that modularity and tuning parameters are bad?
Do you even know how many tuning options other filesystems such as ext4
or XFS have, or how many times they've iterated through different
internal algorithms to address various issues (especially scaling)? The
features you name are *all* configurable because some people need to
make different tradeoffs - often performance vs. resource consumption or
consistency - in their deployments. They can't just be "one size fits
all" values, and the Gluster developers are wise to allow this
flexibility.

I'm not going to engage you further on this Stephan, as long as you
demonstrate such complete ignorance of the issues involved and seem
interested in nothing but insulting those you should be thanking.  If
GlusterFS
is so bad, go away.  Good luck with the alternatives, which I know just
as well
and which are even more painful to deal with.  When you're capable of
contributing constructively, your opinions will gain some weight.