----- Original Message ----- > I know where this statement came from. I believe you are both:
> * trying to apply some statement on a context it's not pertinent to > and No, it's actually quite applicable. I'm aware of the context of that statement by Linus, and it applies to this case. Kernel devs, at least the ext4 maintainers, are being hypocritical. There were a few exchanges between Ted T'so and Avati, among other people, on gluster-devel. I highly recommend you read them: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gluster-devel/2013-02/msg00050.html > * fouling yourself and/or others arguing that this issue will/should > be fixed in the kernel. This is probably true. I'm *this* close to declaring that, at least for the Gluster community, ext4 is considered harmful. There's a reason Red Hat started pushing XFS over ext4 a few years ago. And Red Hat isn't alone here. > The ext4 hash size change was applied in the kernel an year ago. I > don't believe it will be undone. Gluster developers could argue that > this change was hard on them, and that it shouldn't be backported to > Enterprise kernels but after one year not having fixed it is on > Gluster developers. Arguing otherwise seems rather foolish to me. I think that's a legitimate argument to make. This is a conversation that is worth taking up on gluster-devel. But I'm not sure what can be done about it, seeing as how the ext4 maintainers are not likely to make the change. Frankly, dropping ext4 as an FS we can recommend solves a lot of headaches. -JM
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
