[Gluster-users] Slow read performance

Tue Mar 12 12:40:23 UTC 2013

Joe,

Understood. No problem at all.

Regards,

Rodrigo

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Joe Julian <joe at julianfamily.org> wrote:

>  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> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130312/f784bf0d/attachment.html>