On 09/20/2012 11:56 AM, Doug Hunley wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Joe Julian <[email protected]> wrote:
Because it's a vastly higher priority to preserve data. Just because I
delete a volume doesn't mean I want the data deleted. In fact, more often
than not, it's quite the opposite. The barrier to data loss is high, and it
should remain high.
OK, again I'll ask: what is a typical scenario for me as a gluster
admin to delete a volume and want to add one (or more) of its former
bricks to another volume and keep that data in tact? I can't think of
a real world example. But I assume they exist as this is the model
taken by gluster..
True, it may not be as necessary now as it was before 3.3. The way you
used to change replication levels was to delete the volume, then
recreate the volume inserting the new replica(s) in the appropriate
position in the new volume definition.
A number of design decisions are based on admins being able to easily
implement the software, but to have the freedom to do things "outside
the box". Since this has been done before and created data loss, that
safeguard was added. You still have the ability to work outside the box
but you have to take the few seconds to clear the appropriate xattrs and
remove the .glusterfs directory.
(As an aside, stating "again I'll ask" comes off as adversarial. I
assume that was not your intention.)
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
