Hi, and thanks for the answers. On 18.05.2011, at 15:54, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> From reading this list, I wonder if this would be an accurate summary of the > current state of Gluster: > > 3.1.3 - most dependable current version > > 3.1.4 - gained a few bugs > > 3.2.0 - not stable > > So 3.1.3 would be suitable for production systems, as long as the known bug > in mishandling Posix group permissions is worked around (by loosening > permissions). > loosening permissions is not really an option for us. we have many projects/work groups some of them have confidential (although encrypted) data. Most of the groups are pretty dynamic and access permissions are the only way to somehow provide at least a base-level of security. > > Now, I'm not personally knowledgeable on any of this aside from the Posix > group problem. Just asking for confirmation or not of the basic sense I'm > getting from those with extensive experience that 3.1.3 is essentially > dependable, while 3.1.4 is problematic, and 3.2.0 should perhaps only be > used if you want to gain familiarity with the new geo-replication feature, > but avoided for current production use. Yes. The trouble is that there is no real warning about these problems. I would say that 3.2 should not be used at all. What good are new features if the basic features do not work. If I read http://www.gluster.com/community/documentation/index.php/GlusterFS_General_FAQ#What_file_system_semantics_does_GlusterFS_Support.3B_is_it_fully_POSIX_compliant.3F and it states that it is fully POSIX compatible, I am tempted to believe that. And I truly believed that. It took me about half a year to choose our next generation filesystem (moving away from multiple nfs-servers). POSIX compatibility was one of the top features required. If the documentation states that something is the case, but then it turns out that the contrary is the case I am not sure if I can trust the rest of the project. Company or not. If the documentation of a project states things that simply are not true, then there is not reason to use the software. I am really disappointed. Gluster seemed like a really nice project. As it turns out its mainly bogus. Now we need to go back to the drawing board and try to find an alternative. Have a nice day, udo. -- :: udo waechter - [email protected] :: N 52º16'30.5" E 8º3'10.1" :: genuine input for your ears: http://auriculabovinari.de :: your eyes: http://ezag.zoide.net :: your brain: http://zoide.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
