[Gluster-users] booster

Mark Mielke mark at mark.mielke.cc
Mon Sep 14 17:41:06 UTC 2009

On 09/14/2009 01:21 PM, David Saez Padros wrote:
> Hi
> Is there any problem in having both the gluster file system
> mounted in the traditional way and booster using the same
> 'mount point' ?

Due to some system calls not being handling by Gluster - I think I would 
suggest it.

It's not perfect - but at least any calls that fall through will still 
be handled properly. For example, if an application calls fopen(), which 
is not on the GlusterFS list of overridden system calls the last time I 
checked, then at least the fopen() will be intercepted by FUSE rather 
than fail altogether.

One poster (not sure if it was you) suggested that they access the local 
volume directly, rather than through a server. I saw this as being a 
potential problem, since the feature/locks was not the same for both 
local and remote accesses. I could see something similar if the 
feature/locks was being handled separately for FUSE and booster. Not 
having tried it myself - on theory alone - I suggest both talk to a 
local server, allowing the server to schedule concurrent accesses, 
rather than both trying to schedule concurrent accesses to the 
underlying storage/posix as separate processes trying to operate 


Mark Mielke<mark at mielke.cc>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list