[Gluster-users] Slow read performance

[Rodrigo Severo]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Bryan Whitehead <driver at megahappy.net>wrote:

> This is clearly something Linus should support (forcing ext4 fix). There
> is an ethos Linus always champions and that is *never* break userspace.
> NEVER. Clearly this ext4 change has broken userspace. GlusterFS is not in
> the kernel at all and this change has broken it.
>

Apparently one year after the change having made into the kernel you
believe this argument is still relevant. I don't, really don't.


Rodrigo Severo


>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Severo <
> rodrigo at fabricadeideias.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-users mailing list
>> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20130311/7ecea36d/attachment.html>