[Gluster-users] how well will this work
mario.kadastik at cern.ch
Thu Dec 27 21:04:42 UTC 2012
> I'm going to make this as simple as possible. Every message to this list should follow these rules:
> 1. be helpful
> 2. be constructive
> 3. be respectful
> I will not tolerate ranting that serves no purpose. If your message doesn't follow any of the rules above, then you shouldn't be posting it.
Might be jumping in here at a random spot, but looking at Stephan's e-mail it was all three. It was helpful and constructive by outlining a concrete strategy that would make glusterfs greater in his opinion and to an extent that's something I share, performance IS an issue and makes me hesitate in moving glusterfs to the next level at our site (right now we have a 6 node 12 brick configuration that's used extensively as /home, target would be a 180 node 2PB distributed 2-way replicated installation). We hit FUSE snags from day 2 and are running on NFS right now because negative lookup caching is not in FUSE. In fact there is no caching. And NFS has hiccups that cause issues especially for us because we use vz containers with bind mounting so if the headnode nfs goes stale we have to hack a lot to get the stale mount remounted in all the VZ images. I've had at least two or three instances where I had to stop all the containers killing user tasks to remount stably.
And to be fair at least in this particular e-mail I didn't really see much disrespect, just some comparisons that I think still remained in respectful range.
Mario Kadastik, PhD
"Physics is like sex, sure it may have practical reasons, but that's not why we do it"
-- Richard P. Feynman
More information about the Gluster-users