[Gluster-users] Slow read performance

[Rodrigo Severo]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Joe Julian <joe at julianfamily.org> wrote:

>  Which is why we don't run Rodigux
>

Oh Joe, that remark sounds rather inappropriate to me.

Apparently we disagree on more levels that just kernel and applications
compatibility policies.


Regards,

Rodrigo Severo


>
>
> 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>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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing listGluster-users at gluster.orghttp://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/d8818bbb/attachment.html>