[Gluster-users] Slow read performance

[Joe Julian]

Which is why we don't run Rodigux

On 03/11/2013 12:02 PM, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Bryan Whitehead <driver at megahappy.net 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
>         http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130311/80e9272b/attachment.html>