Il 12 nov 2016 9:04 PM, "Alex Crow" <[email protected]> ha scritto: IMHO GlusterFS would be a great > product if it tried to: > > a) Add less features per release, and/or slowing down the release cycle. > Maybe have a "Feature" > those that need to try new, well, features. > b) Concentrate on issues like split-brain, healing, and scaling online > without data loss. Seems to be a common theme on the list where healing > doesn't work without tinkering. It should really "just work". > c) Have a peek at BeeGFS. It's a very well-performing FS that has its > focus on HPC. You can't stand to lose many thousands of CPU-hours of > work if your FS goes down, and it has to be fast. > > The biggest question for me is what is the target market for GlusterFS? > Is it: > > HPC (performance, reliability on the large scale, ie loss of one file is > OK, all not, no funky features) > VM storage (much the same as HPC but large file performance required,no > loss or corruption of blocks within a file) > General File (medium performance OK, small file and random access > paramount, resilience and consistency need to be 99.999%, features such > as ACLs and XATTRs, snapshots required) > > i think if the documentation/wiki addressed these questions it would > make it easier for newcomers to evaluate the product.
Totally agree > This needs to be a warning or clearly documented. If you lose a couple > of PB of data in a professional role, I'd not fancy your employment > prospects. I've always had the feeling that GlusterFS is a bit of a > playground for new features and the only way to really have a stable > storage system is to stump up the cash to RedHat (and we've purchased a > lot of RHEL/RHEV licences), but having so many problems in the community > version really even puts me off buying the full package! > Again, totally agree
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
