[Gluster-users] glusterfs performance issues

[John Mark Walker]

On Jan 8, 2013 8:50 AM, "Stephan von Krawczynski" <skraw at ithnet.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I mind.
> The problem with this kind of bugs is that you cannot describe
reproduction.
> Which makes them pretty useless as bug reports.
> They can therefore only contain the information that such situations are
seen,
> but not much else. And me and others have told that continously over the
years
> on the lists.
> Take 4 physical boxes and check out some damage situations (switch bricks
off
> and on), you will see the described problems within a day.
> You only need bonnie and ls to find out.

I don't doubt that you've seen this behavior. But what do you honestly
expect us to do in cases where we don't see what you describe? And then in
spite of your coding skills you refuse to create an alternative proof of
concept that would demonstrate the superiority of your approach. This is
why I doubt your sincerity. Your primary reason for hanging out here seems
to be so that you can engage in schadenfreude and tell us 'I told you so.'
Is there another reasonable conclusion that I'm missing?

-JM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20130108/c7fb02ab/attachment.html>