Well, what would I know.
On 08/24/2012 02:52 AM, Fernando Frediani (Qube) wrote:
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
