On 03/07/18 14:47, Jim Kinney wrote:
[snip].
The gluster-fuse client works but is slower than most people like. I
use the fuse process in my setup at work. ...
Depending on the use case and configuration. With client-side caching
and cache invalidation, a good number of the performance
There has been a deadlock problem in the past where both the knfs module
and the fuse module each need more memory to satisfy a fop and neither
can acquire that memory due to competing locks. This caused an infinite
wait. Not sure if anything was ever done in the kernel to remedy that.
On
-users-boun...@gluster.org] On Behalf Of Jim Kinney
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 11:47 PM
To: gluster-users@gluster.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Kernel NFS on GlusterFS
Gluster does the sync part better than corosync. It's not an active/passive
failover system. It more all active. Gluster
Gluster does the sync part better than corosync. It's not an
active/passive failover system. It more all active. Gluster handles the
recovery once all nodes are back online.
That requires the client tool chain to understand that a write goes to
all storage devices not just the active one.
3.10 is
Hello,
I'm designing a 2-node, HA NAS that must support NFS. I had planned on
using GlusterFS native NFS until I saw that it is being deprecated. Then, I
was going to use GlusterFS + NFS-Ganesha until I saw that the Ganesha HA
support ended after 3.10 and its replacement is still a WIP. So, I
