[Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?

Udo Waechter udo.waechter at uni-osnabrueck.de
Wed May 18 16:58:26 UTC 2011

Hi, and thanks for the answers.

On 18.05.2011, at 15:54, Whit Blauvelt wrote:

> From reading this list, I wonder if this would be an accurate summary of the
> current state of Gluster:
> 3.1.3 - most dependable current version
> 3.1.4 - gained a few bugs
> 3.2.0 - not stable
> So 3.1.3 would be suitable for production systems, as long as the known bug
> in mishandling Posix group permissions is worked around (by loosening
> permissions).
loosening permissions is not really an option for us. we have many projects/work groups some of them have confidential (although encrypted) data. Most of the groups are pretty dynamic and access permissions are the only way to somehow provide at least a base-level of security.

> Now, I'm not personally knowledgeable on any of this aside from the Posix
> group problem. Just asking for confirmation or not of the basic sense I'm
> getting from those with extensive experience that 3.1.3 is essentially
> dependable, while 3.1.4 is problematic, and 3.2.0 should perhaps only be
> used if you want to gain familiarity with the new geo-replication feature,
> but avoided for current production use.
Yes. The trouble is that there is no real warning about these problems.
I would say that 3.2 should not be used at all. What good are new features if the basic features do not work.
If I read http://www.gluster.com/community/documentation/index.php/GlusterFS_General_FAQ#What_file_system_semantics_does_GlusterFS_Support.3B_is_it_fully_POSIX_compliant.3F

and it states that it is fully POSIX compatible, I am tempted to believe that. And I truly believed that. It took me about half a year to choose our next generation filesystem (moving away from multiple nfs-servers). POSIX compatibility was one of the top features required.
If the documentation states that something is the case, but then it turns out that the contrary is the case I am not sure if I can trust the rest of the project. Company or not.
If the documentation of a project states things that simply are not true, then there is not reason to use the software.

I am really disappointed. Gluster seemed like a really nice project. As it turns out its mainly bogus.
Now we need to go back to the drawing board and try to find an alternative.

Have a nice day,
:: udo waechter - root at zoide.net :: N 52º16'30.5" E 8º3'10.1"
:: genuine input for your ears: http://auriculabovinari.de 
::                          your eyes: http://ezag.zoide.net
::                          your brain: http://zoide.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2427 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110518/8afb8bb5/attachment.p7s>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list