Joe, Gluster is a great concept and I quiet like it, however I also think it has a lot to go yet. Yes it solves peoples problems for certain scenarios but not yet for most of them which I am sure they are working on to solve and with RedHat acquisition it will perhaps be speed up. I wouldn't be bad to say that 'they' (he doesn't do it alone) are doing it wrong. In many aspects they are doing it well and there has been a many improvements over the past couple of months, but on performance subject they didn't get there yet, that's just a fact either you like it or not, and they acknowledge it already.
Fernando -----Original Message----- From: Joe Julian [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 August 2012 10:35 To: Fernando Frediani (Qube) Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Query for web GUI for gluster configuration My images are, indeed, on the volume. I saw that image-based performance wasn't sufficient so I found a better way. That's my point. Not everyone is restricted from being able to take advantage of a better way. So yes, I mount a GlusterFS volume within a VM whose image resides on a GlusterFS volume. By the way, you see "9 of 10 people" reporting poor performance in part because the people that don't have poor performance don't complain about it. Your metric is skewed. I recognize you're upset because your expectations are not being met. You're not alone. I'm not alone either. I see about a dozen new users each day that are excited that this software solves a problem for them. Maybe you should consider posting your use case and seeing if anyone has any suggestions on how you could satisfy that rather than trying to tell Vijay that he's doing it wrong. On 08/24/2012 02:15 AM, Fernando Frediani (Qube) wrote: > Joe, > 9 of 10 people I have seen here reported very poor performance when running > VMs. Obviously they run, but al the performance tests gave results that no > one would expect to get. So yes it works for low profile virtual server, like > quite web servers, etc, but not in general. Any peak you need it can't > accomplish and it does need improvements on Gluster code. > You can't add it to oVirt and tell people, "Look, it's there but it's only > for lwo profile servers that don't require any significant performance". > People don't wouldn't even consider that. > Also you seem to eb mounting Gluster inside the VM which is not the case > here. On oVirt that would be for hosting the VM's images. > > Regards, > > Fernando > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Julian > Sent: 24 August 2012 10:08 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Query for web GUI for gluster > configuration > > It's only "far from good" for certain use cases, not all. I'm actually quite > pleased that GlusterFS emphasizes C& P over A and none of my users complain > ( I use raw images for 14 kvm vms on one of my GlusterFS volumes ). Those VMs > mount GlusterFS volumes for their application data. > Very little is done on the raw image. > > Not everybody that uses virtualization is going to be marketing those VMs to > 3rd parties that expect it to pretend to be an isolated system. > > On 08/24/2012 01:58 AM, Fernando Frediani (Qube) wrote: >> Vijay, how are you planning to integrate Gluster with oVirt (a fantastic >> idea in my opinion) if the performance when running .qcow2 or even .raw >> files is far from good at the moment ? >> >> Fernando > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
