[Gluster-users] Slow read performance
Joe Julian
joe at julianfamily.org
Mon Mar 11 22:24:13 UTC 2013
I apologize. I normally tend to try to be much more eloquent with my
debates.
I woke up this morning to learn that the CentOS 6.4 rollout broke all my
end-user stations (yes, I have to do automatic updates. I just don't
have time to review every package and do everything else I need to do
all by my self). Put 200 employees without computers on my shoulders and
I tend to stress a little until it's resolved.
I took a pot shot and it was uncalled for.
Please forgive me.
On 03/11/2013 12:10 PM, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Joe Julian <joe at julianfamily.org
> <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
>> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130311/6bf1cbc0/attachment.html>
More information about the Gluster-users
mailing list