On 01/31/2013 02:57 PM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
You are asking in the wrong direction. The simple question is: is there any dynamic configuration equally safe than a local config file?
Yes, because inconsistent configurations are a danger too.
There is no probability, either you are a dead client or a working one.
That's a total non sequitur. As soon as there's more than one state, there are probabilities of being in each one. As it turns out, there is also a third possibility - that you are a malfunctioning or incorrectly configured client. Fail-stop errors are the easy ones.
It wouldn't be useful to release a network filesystem that drops dead in case of network errors.
Every network filesystem, or other distributed system of any kind, will fail if there are *sufficient* errors. Some are better than others at making that number larger, some are better than others with respect to the consequence of exceeding that threshold, but all will fail eventually. GlusterFS does handle a great many kinds of failure that you probably can't even imagine, but neither it nor any other system can handle all possible failures.
Most common network errors are not a matter of design, but of dead iron.
It's usually both - a design that is insufficiently tolerant of component failure, plus a combination of component failures that exceeds that tolerance. You seem to have a very high standard for filesystems continuing to maintain 100% functionality - and I suppose 100% performance as well - if there's any possibility whatsoever that they could do so. Why don't you apply that same standard to the part of the system that you're responsible for designing? Running any distributed system on top of a deficient network infrastructure will lead only to disappointment. _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
