[Gluster-users] Turning GlusterFS into something else (was Re: how well will this work)
Stephan von Krawczynski
skraw at ithnet.com
Sun Dec 30 16:12:04 UTC 2012
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:13:52 -0500
Jeff Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/27/12 3:36 PM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > And the same goes for glusterfs. It _could_ be the greatest fs on earth, but
> > only if you accept:
> > 1) Throw away all non-linux code. Because this war is over since long.
> Sorry, but we do have non-Linux users already and won't abandon them. We
> wouldn't save all that much time even if we did, so it just doesn't make sense.
Jeff, really, if you argue, please state your argument openly. You don't want
this point because its next logical step would be my point 2), the kernel
implementation. As long as you hold up dead boxes like orcale-owned solaris
you have a good point in not doing 2). Success needs focussing. If you try to
be everybody's darling you may well end up being dropped by everybody because
you are not good enough.
> > 2) Make a kernel based client/server implementation. Because it is the only
> > way to acceptable performance.
> That's an easy thing to state, but a bit harder to prove.
Come on, how old are you? can you remember userspace-nfs? In case you cannot:
it had just about the same problems glusterfs has today, and guess why it is
> [a lot of bad examples deleted]
Really, you cannot prove you are right by naming some examples that are even
> > 3) Implement true undelete feature. Make delete a move to a deleted-files area.
> Some people want that, some people do not.
Haha! A good argument for a config parameter :-) - I would have suggested that
> Some are even precluded from using
> it e.g. for compliance reasons. It's hardly a must-have feature. In any case,
> it already exists - called "landfill" I believe, though I'm not sure of its
> support status or configurability via the command line. If it didn't exist, it
> would still be easy to create - which wouldn't be the case at all if we
> followed your advice to put this in the kernel.
Now I wonder how you argue about this. Let me bring in some analogy you will
probably hate. Linux MM uses free memory to cache for just about anything
thinkable of. This drives W*indows users crazy using Android. They always try
to put the latest "kill-all-not-needed-apps" tool to let them read a big
number in free space statistics. They do not understand that free memory is in
fact wasted memory. And the same thing goes for disk space. If I delete
something on a disk that is far from being full it is just plain dumb to
really erase this data from the disk. It won't help anyone. It will only hurt
you if you deleted it accidently. Read my lips: free disk space is wasted
space, just like free mem is wasted mem.
And _that_ is the true reason for undelete. It won't hurt anybody, and will
help some. And since it is the true goal of a fs to organise data on a drive
it is most obvious that "undelete" (you may call it lazy-delete) is a very
basic fs feature and _not_ an add-on patched onto it.
> If it's a priority for you and
> existing facilities do not suffice, then I suggest adding a feature page on the
> wiki and/or an enhancement-request bug report, so that we can incorporate that
> feedback into our planning process. Thank you for your help making GlusterFS
Jeff, this is really no technical question we are talking about. It's more a
question of a management decision. If redhat wants a truely successful
glusterfs someone has to decide to follow my steps. If the stuff was only
bought because it looked interesting and no one else should use its true
potential, well then go ahead.
More information about the Gluster-users