Mark Mielke wrote:
For Daniel: For the seems crazy, compared to what? Every time I look at
other solutions such as Lustre and see how they rely on a single
metadata server, that itself is supposed to be highly available using
other means, I have to ask, are they really solving the highly
availability problem, or are they just narrowing the scope? If the whole
For "shared nothing", each node really does need to be fully independent
and able to make its own decisions. I think the GlusterFS folk have the
model right in this regard.
The remaining question is whether they have the *implementation* right. :-)
You're taking my statement too far. :) All i meant was that i don't
think the clients should be responsible for replication - that, in my
mind, is the job of the servers.
Basically, i *like* it when the clients are independant, and the servers
work together - not the other way around. That's all.
--
Daniel Maher <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
