On Sat, 21 May 2011 13:27:38 +0200
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> If you found a bug, and even more, it's repeatable for you, please file
> a bug report and describe the way to reproduce it.
Ha, very sorry that the project is not an easy-go for a dev. Creating
reproducable setups for software spre
On 21.05.2011 10:33, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:01:22 +0200
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
On 20.05.2011 15:51, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
most of them are just an outcome of not being able to find a working i.e. best
solution for a problem. cache-timeout? thread-co
On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:01:22 +0200
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> On 20.05.2011 15:51, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
>
> > most of them are just an outcome of not being able to find a working i.e.
> > best
> > solution for a problem. cache-timeout? thread-count? quick-read?
> > stat-prefetch? Gim
On 20.05.2011 15:51, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
most of them are just an outcome of not being able to find a working i.e. best
solution for a problem. cache-timeout? thread-count? quick-read?
stat-prefetch? Gimme a break. Being a fs I'd even say all the cache-size paras
are bogus. When did y
Jeff, let me give a final word on that.
I have no assets with this company and no other linux company, and that's why
I seem to gain the role of the bad boy pretty often in scenarios when people
loose track of the obvious. If it is not obvious to you that there are serious
problems both with stabil
On 05/20/2011 09:51 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance Jeff, but it is obvious to anyone having used glusterfs
> for months or years that the guys have a serious software design issue.
No, it is not. I've been using and watching its development for years,
I know its code far
On Fri, 20 May 2011 08:35:35 -0400
Jeff Darcy wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 05:15 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > Sorry, this clearly shows the problem: understanding. It really does
> > not help you a lot to hire a big number of people, you do not fail in
> > terms of business relation. Your pro
On 05/20/2011 05:15 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> Sorry, this clearly shows the problem: understanding. It really does
> not help you a lot to hire a big number of people, you do not fail in
> terms of business relation. Your problem is the _code_. You need a
> filesystem expert. A _real_ o
On Wed, 18 May 2011 13:16:59 -0700
Anand Babu Periasamy wrote:
> GlusterFS is completely free. Same versions released to the community are
> used for commercial deployments too. Their issues gets higher priority
> though. Code related to other proprietary software such as VMWare, AWS,
> RightScal
sday, May 19, 2011 11:20 AM
>> To: gluster-users@gluster.org
>> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
>>
>> > Message: 2 Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 19:00:30 +0200 From: Udo Waechter
>> > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users]
> gluster
>> > 3.2.0 -
http://www.formatdynamics.com
> -Original Message-
> From: gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-
> boun...@gluster.org] On Behalf Of Dan Bretherton
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: gluster-users@gluster.org
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 19:00:30 +0200 From: Udo Waechter
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster
3.2.0 - totally broken? To: Gluster Users
Message-ID: <948199a7-c1ee-42cb-8540-8856000d0...@uni-osnabrueck.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" On 18.05
luster.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Darcy
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:04 PM
To: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
On 05/18/2011 11:09 AM, Burnash, James wrote:
> Based on my experiences so far, I would absolutely agree with you.
>
> I kno
great to know - this is very reassuring to hear! i know it's early days for
a file-system - and that fact so many people are using it so quickly (say,
as compared to BTRFS) is amazing. i think there's lots of goodwill here -
which can/will translate into a even more vibrant community. i look for
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
>
> Running that command will set that option only on the server side. But
> it looks like you want it on the client volume file for which there
> currently is not any command.
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Just
GlusterFS is completely free. Same versions released to the community are
used for commercial deployments too. Their issues gets higher priority
though. Code related to other proprietary software such as VMWare, AWS,
RightScale are kept proprietary.
We acknowledge that we have done a poor job when
PM
> To: 'Justice London'; 'Tomasz Chmielewski'; 'Anthony J. Biacco'
> Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org
> Subject: RE: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
>
> I believe that it is more consistent and repeatable to just use the gluster
> command
On 18.05.2011 21:48, Justice London wrote:
I had issues with hanging of mounts as well with 3.2. I fixed it via upping
the number of connections allowed to the fuse mount... by default it's
something silly low like 16.
What option exactly is it, and where do I set it?
That could be it, as the
On 18.05.2011 21:34, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
When you say you removed the config before and added the nodes after, do
you mean you deleted the volume and recreated it?
Yes.
I think I tried to do this without removing the config first, but 3.1.4
was complaining upon startup. Also, I've read a
: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:57 PM
To: 'Justice London'; 'Tomasz Chmielewski'; 'Anthony J. Biacco'
Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: RE: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
I believe that it is more consistent and repeatable to just use the gluster
com
ice London
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:49 PM
To: 'Tomasz Chmielewski'; 'Anthony J. Biacco'
Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
Whoops, and forgot the threads edit for the brick instance config:
volume -io-threads
. Biacco
Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
On 18.05.2011 18:56, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
> I'm using it in real-world production, lot of small files (apache
> webroot mounts mostly). I've seen a bunch of split-brain and self-heal
er.org] On Behalf Of Tomasz Chmielewski
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:05 AM
To: Anthony J. Biacco
Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
On 18.05.2011 18:56, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
> I'm using it in real-world production, lot of small files
On 05/18/2011 03:27 PM, Udo Waechter wrote:
On 18.05.2011, at 19:13, Joe Landman wrote:
+1 Folks, get an account there, and report problems, even if you
haven't paid for support.
Second, if you haven't paid for support, and you are using it in a
production environment to either make money o
On 18.05.2011, at 19:13, Joe Landman wrote:
>
> +1 Folks, get an account there, and report problems, even if you haven't
> paid for support.
>
> Second, if you haven't paid for support, and you are using it in a production
> environment to either make money or support your mission, please, h
Hi,
On 18.05.2011, at 19:14, Anand Avati wrote:
> Udo,
> Do you know what kind of access was performed on those files? Were they just
> copied in (via cp), were they rsync'ed over an existing set of data? Was it
> data carried over from 3.1 into a 3.2 system? We hate to lose
We started our fi
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:34:43AM -0700, Anand Avati wrote:
> 3.1.4 - gained a few bugs
>
>Can someone throw more light on this? We do not have any open bugs in
>bugzilla marked against 3.1.4 - which means either
>a) They were reported and fixed, but we haven't made a release yet
>
>
> 3.1.4 - gained a few bugs
>
>
Can someone throw more light on this? We do not have any open bugs in
bugzilla marked against 3.1.4 - which means either
a) They were reported and fixed, but we haven't made a release yet
b) We have not been fixing it because we have not yet heard about it!
Av
On 05/18/2011 01:04 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
On 05/18/2011 11:09 AM, Burnash, James wrote:
[...]
As the leader for a project based on GlusterFS, I'm also very sensitive
to the stability issue. It is a bit disappointing when every major
release seems to be marked by significant regressions in exi
Udo,
Do you know what kind of access was performed on those files? Were they
just copied in (via cp), were they rsync'ed over an existing set of data?
Was it data carried over from 3.1 into a 3.2 system? We hate to lose users
(community users or paid customers equally) and will do our best to keep
On 18.05.2011 18:56, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
I’m using it in real-world production, lot of small files (apache
webroot mounts mostly). I’ve seen a bunch of split-brain and self-heal
failing when I first did the switch. After I removed and recreated the
dirs it seemed to be fine for about a week
On 05/18/2011 11:09 AM, Burnash, James wrote:
> Based on my experiences so far, I would absolutely agree with you.
>
> I know new releases are hard to produce at 100% coming out of the
> gate, so the fact that 3.2 is not all that robust is unsurprising to
> me. Hopefully the point releases improve
On 18.05.2011, at 18:56, Anthony J. Biacco wrote:
>
> I’m actually thinking of downgrading to 3.1.3 from 3.2.0. Wonder if I’d have
> any ill-effects on the volume with a simple rpm downgrade and daemon restart.
I read somewhere in the docs that you need to reset the volume option beforehand
g
Hi, and thanks for the answers.
On 18.05.2011, at 15:54, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> From reading this list, I wonder if this would be an accurate summary of the
> current state of Gluster:
>
> 3.1.3 - most dependable current version
>
> 3.1.4 - gained a few bugs
>
> 3.2.0 - not stable
>
> So 3.1.
to:gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org] On Behalf Of paul simpson
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:05 AM
To: Whit Blauvelt
Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
hi guys,
we're using 3.1.3 and i'm not moving off it. i totally agree
ster-users-boun...@gluster.org] On Behalf Of Whit Blauvelt
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:55 AM
To: Udo Waechter
Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster 3.2.0 - totally broken?
>From reading this list, I wonder if this would be an accurate summary of the
>cur
hi guys,
we're using 3.1.3 and i'm not moving off it. i totally agree with stephans
comments: the gluster devs *need* to concentrate on stability before adding
any new features. it seems gluster dev is sales driven - not tech focused.
we need less new buzz words - and more solid foundations.
g
>From reading this list, I wonder if this would be an accurate summary of the
current state of Gluster:
3.1.3 - most dependable current version
3.1.4 - gained a few bugs
3.2.0 - not stable
So 3.1.3 would be suitable for production systems, as long as the known bug
in mishandling Posix group per
On Wed, 18 May 2011 14:45:19 +0200
Udo Waechter wrote:
> Hi there,
> after reporting some trouble with group access permissions,
> http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2011-May/007619.html (which
> still persist, btw.)
>
> things get worse and worse with each day.
> [...]
> Currently our
Hi there,
after reporting some trouble with group access permissions,
http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2011-May/007619.html (which
still persist, btw.)
things get worse and worse with each day.
Now, we see a lot of duplicate files (again, only fuse-clients here),
access permissions
40 matches
Mail list logo
