On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:17:48 -0800 Craig Carl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please don't think we are > not working hard to meet your expectations. Really, Craig, I am not expecting _anything_ for _me_ from glusterfs. I only feel very sorry for an interesting project that gave a great vision but choose featurism over completely solving basic requirements of a fs, not to mention trivial expectations concerning a replication setup - which should have been a true strength. > At a higher level Gluster is changing, and I think improving based > on feedback from the community, our paid subscribers and the storage > industry as a whole. Designing and writing a file system that is used on > thousands of servers in less than 3 years was, and is incredibly > challenging, and expensive. Contrast Gluster with another excellent file > system project, brtfs, which also has paid engineering resources and is > still very experimental [1]. I really don't want to talk about btrfs here, because its problems are unrelated to glusterfs problems. > Our community asked for a couple of things from Gluster 3.1; Well, honestly, whatever the community asked, you managed to create the first project I have seen in more than a decade that is not able to upgrade its older versions because trivial deployment setups have just been _dropped_. I cannot remember ever seeing something like this before. That is really outstanding. > Thanks, > > Craig > > --> > Craig Carl > Senior Systems Engineer > Gluster -- Regards, Stephan _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
