[Gluster-users] Slow read performance

Rodrigo Severo rodrigo at fabricadeideias.com
Mon Mar 11 18:34:41 UTC 2013

If you prefer to say that Linus recent statement isn't pertinent to Gluster
x ext4 issue (as I do), or that ext4 developers are being
hypocritical/ignoring Linus orientation (as you do) or anything similar
isn't really relevant any more.

This argument could have been important in March 2012, the month the ext4
change as applied. Today, March 2013, or Gluster devs decides to assume
it's incompatible with ext4 and states it clearly in it's installations and
migration documentation, or fixes it's current issues with ext4. No matter
what is done, it should have been done months ago.


Rodrigo Severo

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM, John Mark Walker <johnmark at redhat.com>wrote:

> ------------------------------
> I know where this statement came from. I believe you are both:
>    - trying to apply some statement on a context it's not pertinent to
>    and
> No, it's actually quite applicable. I'm aware of the context of that
> statement by Linus, and it applies to this case. Kernel devs, at least the
> ext4 maintainers, are being hypocritical.
> There were a few exchanges between Ted T'so and Avati, among other people,
> on gluster-devel. I highly recommend you read them:
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gluster-devel/2013-02/msg00050.html
>    - fouling yourself and/or others arguing that this issue will/should
>    be fixed in the kernel.
> This is probably true. I'm *this* close to declaring that, at least for
> the Gluster community, ext4 is considered harmful. There's a reason Red Hat
> started pushing XFS over ext4 a few years ago.
> And Red Hat isn't alone here.
> The ext4 hash size change was applied in the kernel an year ago. I don't
> believe it will be undone. Gluster developers could argue that this change
> was hard on them, and that it shouldn't be backported to Enterprise kernels
> but after one year not having fixed it is on Gluster developers. Arguing
> otherwise seems rather foolish to me.
> I think that's a legitimate argument to make. This is a conversation that
> is worth taking up on gluster-devel. But I'm not sure what can be done
> about it, seeing as how the ext4 maintainers are not likely to make the
> change.
> Frankly, dropping ext4 as an FS we can recommend solves a lot of
> headaches.
> -JM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20130311/809c2fa5/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list