[Gluster-users] glusterfs performance issues

[Stephan von Krawczynski]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:04:48 -0500
Jeff Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com> wrote:

> Timestamps are totally unreliable as a conflict resolution mechanism.  Even if
> one were to accept the dependency on time synchronization, there's still the
> possibility of drift as yet uncorrected by the synchronization protocol.  The
> change logs used by self heal are the *only* viable solution here.  If you want
> to participate constructively, we could have a discussion about how those
> change logs should be set and checked, and whether a brick should be allowed to
> respond to requests for a file between coming up and completion of at least one
> self-heal check (Mario's example would be a good one to follow), but insisting
> on even less reliable methods isn't going to help.

Nobody besides you is talking about timestamps. I would simply choose an
increasing stamp, increased by every write-touch of the file.
In a trivial comparison this assures you choose the latest copy of the file.
There is really no time needed at all, and therefore no time synchronisation
issues.

-- 
MfG,
Stephan