I'm sorry you took that email as an "I'm always right" sort of thing.
You were telling a user that things were a certain way and for the
majority of users that I encounter on a daily basis, it's just not true.
I wanted to set the record straight so that user can make a properly
informed decision. If you'd put your absolutes in a context of "I tried
to do it this way but it didn't work for me", then I wouldn't have had a
leg to stand on.
I hang out on the IRC and help people all day long for the last couple
of years. I've seen many more people with positive experiences than
negative ones. When something doesn't work as designed, I always
encourage bug reports. If you have found bugs, please report them. I
just did a search and can't find any that you're attached to. There are
a whopping 34 open bugs for geo-replicate and 14 of those are feature
requests. Of the remaining 20, 5 haven't been fixed yet. That doesn't
look like "it's really buggy" to me (looking at geo-replication because
that's the tool designed to be "distributed to more than one place"
which is what I believe we're discussing).
The reason I, and most of the people that I work with that also have
successfully used GlusterFS, don't update the docs to tell you how to do
it successfully is because we just followed the docs and it worked.
There are, indeed, people for whom that's not true. There have been, on
occasion, people even in the IRC channel that had problems that were so
far outside the norm that we couldn't help them. Obviously I can't tell
you why they have problems because we couldn't figure out their problem.
Most of the people who do have problems missed at least one step in the
installation process as documented.
If you've found a bug but are having troubles isolating it, feel free to
ask for help here or on the IRC channel (#gluster on freenode). I love
finding bugs so we can all have a better tool to use.
On 10/22/2012 07:55 AM, Israel Shirk wrote:
On 10/21/2012 02:18 PM, Israel Shirk wrote:
> Haris, try the NFS mount. Gluster typically triggers healing through
> the client, so if you skip the client, nothing heals.
Not true anymore. With 3.3 there's a self-heal daemon that will handle
the heals. You do risk reading stale data if you don't read through the
client though.
It's not going to trigger this by writing to the brick itself, and
doing 'ls -l' or stat is kind of a mess.
> The native Gluster client tends to be really @#$@#$@# stupid. It'll
> send reads to Singapore while you're in Virginia (and there are bricks
> 0.2ms away),
False. The client will read from the first-to-respond. Yes, if Singapore
is responding faster than Virginia you might want to figure out why
Virginia is so overloaded that it's taking more than 200ms to respond,
but really that shouldn't be the case.
Totally agree. Should not be the case. Wish it was false. But when
it suddenly sends EVERYTHING to Singapore from Virginia, not touching
the servers in Virginia AT ALL, and you can mount them using NFS and
it works great, I gotta point my finger at the client. You can
disagree however much you want, but I'm talking from very frustrating
experiences here.
> then when healing is needed it will take a bunch of time to do that,
> all the while it's blocking your application or web server, which
> under heavy loads will cause your entire application to buckle.
False. 3.3 uses granular locking which won't block your application.
Blocking your application as in, taking so many file descriptors due
to lag that the application runs out of file descriptors or
connections and locks up.
> The NFS client is dumb, which in my mind is a lot better - it'll just
> do what you tell it to do and allow you to compensate for connectivity
> issues yourself using something like Linux-HA.
The "NFS client" is probably more apt than you meant. It is both
GlusterFS client and NFS server, and it connects to the bricks and
performs reads and self-heal in exactly the same way as the fuse client.
It works, where the native Gluster client wakes you up for hours in
the middle of the night. You can argue about internals, I'm just
saying one works, the other fails miserably.
>
> You have to keep in mind when using gluster that 99% of the people
> using it are running their tests on a single server (see the recent
> notes about how testing patches are only performed on a single server),
False. There are many more testers than that, most of which are outside
of the development team.
You are always right and I am always wrong. Congratulations :)
I'm simply saying that I keep hearing that Gluster is supposed to work
great on distributed applications (as in distributed to more than one
place), but the reality of the situation is that it's really buggy and
nobody is willing to acknowledge it. There are big problems with
using Gluster in this way, and I can't see that being the case when
it's being tested for this. If you're having better luck with it in a
high-traffic production environment, by all means update the docs so
others don't have to go through the downtime that results from
Gluster's undocumented issues.
> and most applications don't distribute or mirror to bricks more than a
> few hundred yards away. Their idea of geo-replication is that you
> send your writes to the other side of the world (which may or may not
> be up at the moment), then twiddle your thumbs for a while and hope it
> gets back to you. So, that said, it's possible to get it to work, and
> it's almost better than lsyncd, but it'll still make you cry periodically.
>
> Ok, back to happy time :)
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
