Re: [Gluster-users] Fw: performance evaluation of distributed storage systems

[Jules Wang]

As you come from BTH, I believe your test result is biased, because I get
“2011 Establishing research agreement with BTH and Ericsson” from 
compuverde.com.


As I could not even find a trial version of compuverde on compuverde.com, none 
of us could help you verify your test result.

your email looks like a ad. , that`s bad.

Jules Wang.

At 2013-01-22 17:55:13,"Sogand Shirinbab"  wrote:
- Forwarded by Sogand Shirinbab/Staff/BTH on 2013-01-22 10:55 -

From:Sogand Shirinbab/Staff/BTH
To:gluster-users@gluster.org
Date:2013-01-16 14:35
Subject:performance evaluation of distributed storage systems




Hi,

I'm a phd student and as a part of my research I've compared performance of 
different distributed storage systems (Gluster, Openstack, Compuverde). I would 
like you as an expert in your product to give me feedback on my work. What do 
you think about the way we've setup the system? does it affects the Gluster 
performance?

please find my paper as attachment to this mail!

Best Regards,
SogandShirinbab


Blekinge Tekniska Högskolan
371 79 Karlskrona
0455 -385709

___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

[Gluster-users] Upcoming Workshop: CERN, 26 February

[Leslie Hawthorn]

Hello everyone,

The Gluster Community Team will be hosting a workshop for the employees 
of CERN on Tuesday, 26 February 2013. We also have a limited number of 
places we can offer to the wider community who would like to attend the 
workshop.


If you would be interested in joining us and will be in and around 
Zurich, Switzerland on 26 February, please contact me off-list for an 
invitation to the workshop.


Agenda details are forthcoming; please stay tuned.

Cheers,
LH

--
Leslie Hawthorn
Community Action and Impact
Open Source and Standards @ Red Hat

identi.ca/lh
twitter.com/lhawthorn

___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] What would the cli command look like for integrating custom xlator?

[Jeff Darcy]

On 01/22/2013 12:59 PM, Joe Julian wrote:

The cli has been great for adding the necessary management tools,but if you
want to use custom translators, you're back to writing vol files and losing
your ability to do online volume changes. This ability needs to be added in
order for custom translators to become viable.

What would the cli command look like for integrating custom xlator?

I can picture a couple ways, one of which would be that xlators would list
requirements and providers so the volgen would be able to intuit a valid graph
if that xlator is enabled for the volume. The cli would provide command hooks
for any new features that xlator would need to add to the cli.

The gluster command should have a switch option listing the supported mount
options in case a xlator provides new ones (would be parsed by mount.glusterfs).

Anybody else have a view?


How about this?

gluster volume client-xlator myvol encryption/rot14 cluster/distribute

This would tell the volfile-generation machinery that it should insert 
something like this:


volume myvol-dht
type cluster/distribute
...
subvolume

volume myvol-rot14
type encryption/rot14
...
subvolumes myvol-dht
end-volume

Basically the type/path is determined by the first argument, and the position 
in the volfile by the second.  There'd be a server-xlator equivalent, 
obviously, and it's up to you to make sure the translator even exists at that 
location on each client/server.  Then you could do this:


gluster volume set myvol encryption/rot14.algorithm Salsa20

This covers most of the kinds of translator insertion that I've seen both in 
GlusterFS and in HekaFS, though there are a few that require deeper changes to 
the volfile-generation logic (e.g. when NUFA was brought back or to do HekaFS 
multi-tenancy).  One could even have gluster/d inspect the named .so and make 
sure that everything "looks right" in terms of entry points and options.  One 
thing I don't like about this approach is that there's no way to specify a 
specific instance of the new translator or its parent either in the original 
insertion command or when setting options; there's sort of an implicit "for 
each" in there.  In some situations we might also want separate "above" and 
"below" qualifiers to say where the new translator should go.


For HekaFS I actually developed a Python infrastructure for working with 
volfiles (see volfile.py either there or in some of my subsequent scripts), and 
there's a hook to enable them (see volgen_apply_filters).  That provides total 
flexibility, but that doesn't make it the right approach.  For one thing, it 
doesn't really play well with the rest of our option-setting machinery.  I 
think the more "structured" approach would be better for the vast majority of 
cases, with this type of filter only as a last resort.



___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

[Gluster-users] What would the cli command look like for integrating custom xlator?

[Joe Julian]

The cli has been great for adding the necessary management tools,but if you 
want to use custom translators, you're back to writing vol files and losing 
your ability to do online volume changes. This ability needs to be added in 
order for custom translators to become viable. 

What would the cli command look like for integrating custom xlator? 

I can picture a couple ways, one of which would be that xlators would list 
requirements and providers so the volgen would be able to intuit a valid graph 
if that xlator is enabled for the volume. The cli would provide command hooks 
for any new features that xlator would need to add to the cli.

The gluster command should have a switch option listing the supported mount 
options in case a xlator provides new ones (would be parsed by 
mount.glusterfs). 

Anybody else have a view?___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Fw: performance evaluation of distributed storage systems

[harry mangalam]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:59:10 AM Jeff Darcy wrote:
> (7) The nature of the relationship between BTH and Compuverde needs to 
> be more explicit.  Did it include configuration/tuning help?  Bug fixes? 
>   Equipment loans or other material support?  If not, then it's just a 
> matter of applying usual disclosure standards.  If so, then perhaps 
> representatives from other projects (OpenStack as well) should have the 
> same opportunity to make sure the results are representative of current 
> best practices.


This might be partially addressed in:


There may be a conflict of interest that was not disclosed in the paper.

---
Harry Mangalam - Research Computing, OIT, Rm 225 MSTB, UC Irvine
[m/c 2225] / 92697 Google Voice Multiplexer: (949) 478-4487
415 South Circle View Dr, Irvine, CA, 92697 [shipping]
MSTB Lat/Long: (33.642025,-117.844414) (paste into Google Maps)
---
"Something must be done. [X] is something. Therefore, we must do it."
Bruce Schneier, on American response to just about anything.
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Meta

[Joe Julian]

Joe Landman  wrote:

>Freedom of speech isn't relevant here, the mailing list and product are 
>privately 
>owned, and there is no presumption of such freedom in this case.  I'd 
>urge you to respect the other list members and participants, by 
>positively contributing as noted above.  The "gluster fails, X rulez" 
>doesn't quite fit this.
>

Just to clarify, this list is part of the Gluster Community project, the 
upstream project, not Red Hat.

If you walked into the local Boy Scouts meeting and started telling them that 
they are all wrong and should be in some other organization in stead, expect to 
be asked to leave. Freedom of speech only allows you to speak without 
government persecution.
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Fw: performance evaluation of distributed storage systems

[Jeff Darcy]

On 01/22/2013 04:55 AM, Sogand Shirinbab wrote:

I'm a phd student and as a part of my research I've compared performance
of different distributed storage systems (Gluster, Openstack,
Compuverde). I would like you as an expert in your product to give me
feedback on my work. What do you think about the way we've setup the
system? does it affects the Gluster performance?


Interesting work.  Some questions:

(1) Why was Ceph excluded?  It's readily available and has an almost 
identical object-storage interface, but no reason is given for leaving 
it out.


(2) The Atom/4GB/GigE storage nodes seem like an odd choice.  Have you 
tried testing on other kinds of platforms?


(3) More information on software versions and configurations would be 
very helpful.  For GlusterFS, there are significant differences both 
between versions and between different ways of organizing a volume 
across 384 disks.


(4) What program(s) other than SPECsfs did you use to generate load? 
The results for most of the tests seem very inconsistent with those for 
SPECsfs, especially for GlusterFS.


(5) How POSIX-compliant is the structured form of Compuverde?  Does it 
have full and proper support for things like fsync/O_SYNC, extended 
attributes, or atomic cross-directory rename?  Does it use FUSE, or 
interface to the system in some other way?


(6) Several of the statements made in section 5.3 seem inaccurate. 
GlusterFS only uses rsync for remote replication, which it seems clear 
from the rest of the paper would be irrelevant to these tests.  Also, 
it's not generally true that self-heal would actually be done from the 
proxy servers (though it could be initiated from there).  Lastly, this 
is one of the areas where version/configuration differences would make a 
huge difference in the results.


(7) The nature of the relationship between BTH and Compuverde needs to 
be more explicit.  Did it include configuration/tuning help?  Bug fixes? 
 Equipment loans or other material support?  If not, then it's just a 
matter of applying usual disclosure standards.  If so, then perhaps 
representatives from other projects (OpenStack as well) should have the 
same opportunity to make sure the results are representative of current 
best practices.

___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Meta

[Joe Landman]

On 01/22/2013 09:28 AM, F. Ozbek wrote:


However, it just turns out that we have the data and the tests, so we 
will

post it here. I have this feeling that the moment we do, Jeff will start


Please provide more information on the "data and the tests".  What are 
they, what do they entail, what is meant by failing, passing, etc.?


This information is helpful to everyone, regardless of which systems do 
poorly/well.


OTOH, please be prepared for a fairly intensive look at your testing 
methodology.  We've found in our own experience, that unless the tests 
really do what they are purported to do, that end users wind up 
generating less than valuable data, and subsequently, decisions based 
upon this are as often as not, fundamentally flawed.


I cannot tell you how many times we've dealt with flawed tests that 
didn't come close to measuring what people thought they did.   Its quite 
amusing to be attacked with results of these tests as well. Using poor 
tests and then bashing vendors with them is more of a reflection of the 
user than of the vendor.


Honestly, we have some issues with Gluster that we've raised off list 
with John Mark and others (not Jeff, but I should make the points with 
him as well).  There are reasonable and valid critiques of it, and it is 
not appropriate for all workloads.   There are good elements to it, and 
... less good ... elements to it, in implementation, design, etc.


I agree with Jeff that its bad form to come on the list and say "Gluster 
fails, X works" in general.  Its far more constructive to come on the 
list and say "these are the tests we use, and these are the results.  
Gluster does well here and here, X does well here and here."  Freedom of 
speech isn't relevant here, the mailing list and product are privately 
owned, and there is no presumption of such freedom in this case.  I'd 
urge you to respect the other list members and participants, by 
positively contributing as noted above.  The "gluster fails, X rulez" 
doesn't quite fit this.


So ... may I request that, before you respond to further posts on this 
topic, that you create a post with your tests, how you ran them, your 
hardware configs, your software stack elements (kernel, net/IB, ...), 
details of the tests, details of the results?  Without this, I am hard 
pressed to take further posts seriously.


There are alternatives to Gluster.  The ones we use/deploy include Ceph, 
Fraunhofer, Lustre, and others.  We did review MooseFS, mostly for a set 
of media customers.  It had some positive elements, but we found that 
performance was underwhelming for our streaming and reliability tests 
(c.f. http://download.scalableinformatics.com/disk_stress_tests/fio/ ).  
Our hardware are our JackRabbit units, and our siFlash units (links not 
provided so as to avoid spamming).  Native system performance was 
2.5GB/s for the JackRabbit, about 8GB/s for the siFlash.  GlusterFS got 
me to 2GB/s on JackRabbit, and 3.5GB/s on siFlash.  MooseFS, when we 
tested (about a year ago), was about 400-500 MB/s on JackRabbit, and 
about 600 MB/s on siFlash.  We tried some networked tests to multiple 
clients (and John Mark has an email from me around that time) where we 
were sustaining 2+ GB/s across 2x JackRabbit units with GlusterFS.  I've 
never been able to get above 700 MB/s with MooseFS on any of our test 
cases.  I've had tests fail on MooseFS, usually when a network port 
becomes overloaded, its response to this was anything but graceful.


We had considered using it with some customers, but figured we should 
wait for it to mature some more.   We feel the same way about btrfs, and 
until recently, about Ceph.  The two latter have been coming along 
nicely.  Ceph is deployable.


W.r.t. Gluster, it has been getting better, with a few caveats (again, 
John Mark knows what I am talking about).  Its not perfect for 
everything, but its quite good at what it does.


Regards,

Joe

--
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics Inc.
email: land...@scalableinformatics.com
web  : http://scalableinformatics.com
   http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster
phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
fax  : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615

___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

[Gluster-users] Missing files

[James Devine]

I seem to be running into an issue where gluster reports files are missing
and the real problem seems to happen when it refers to these files via gfid
rather than path.  I see instances in my logs where it referred to files by
path and while this may be a problem, services were still running.  Right
now the apache processes serving files off gluster are hung in an
uninterruptible state holding open a file which lsof lists as deleted and
my gluster client logs show missing files referenced by gfid.  Anyone have
any idea how I might go about troubleshooting this?


[2013-01-22 08:05:22.874323] W [client3_1-fops.c:474:client3_1_stat_cbk]
0-WEBSTATS-client-1: remote operation failed: No such file or directory
[2013-01-22 08:05:22.874884] W [client3_1-fops.c:474:client3_1_stat_cbk]
0-WEBSTATS-client-0: remote operation failed: No such file or directory
[2013-01-22 08:05:22.877501] W
[client3_1-fops.c:1059:client3_1_getxattr_cbk] 0-WEBSTATS-client-1: remote
operation failed: No such file or directory. Path:

(9c1ab9dc-26e6-4e59-8f5c-2a926ee1a981). Key: trusted.glusterfs.dht.linkto
[2013-01-22 08:05:22.878042] W
[client3_1-fops.c:1059:client3_1_getxattr_cbk] 0-WEBSTATS-client-0: remote
operation failed: No such file or directory. Path:

(9c1ab9dc-26e6-4e59-8f5c-2a926ee1a981). Key: trusted.glusterfs.dht.linkto
[2013-01-22 08:05:22.885954] W [client3_1-fops.c:474:client3_1_stat_cbk]
0-WEBSTATS-client-1: remote operation failed: No such file or directory
[2013-01-22 08:05:22.886492] W [client3_1-fops.c:474:client3_1_stat_cbk]
0-WEBSTATS-client-0: remote operation failed: No such file or directory
[2013-01-22 08:05:22.889113] W
[client3_1-fops.c:1059:client3_1_getxattr_cbk] 0-WEBSTATS-client-1: remote
operation failed: No such file or directory. Path:

(9c1ab9dc-26e6-4e59-8f5c-2a926ee1a981). Key: trusted.glusterfs.dht.linkto
[2013-01-22 08:05:22.889809] W
[client3_1-fops.c:1059:client3_1_getxattr_cbk] 0-WEBSTATS-client-0: remote
operation failed: No such file or directory. Path:

(9c1ab9dc-26e6-4e59-8f5c-2a926ee1a981). Key: trusted.glusterfs.dht.linkto
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Meta

[Jeff Darcy]

On 01/22/2013 09:28 AM, F. Ozbek wrote:

I seems to me, when Jon asked for an alternative to glusterfs and I said
to Jon you can look at
moosefs, I should be able to do that without 3 months of testing and data.


It wasn't the recommendation to try MooseFS that offended me.  Before I 
discovered some of its flaws I might have done so myself, and (as I've 
already mentioned in this thread) I'm still willing to recommend Ceph or 
XtreemFS as alternatives.  It was the "failed in many ways (but we won't 
say how)" part that seemed non-constructive and FUDish.



However, it just turns out that we have the data and the tests, so we will
post it here. I have this feeling that the moment we do, Jeff will start
attacking us but honestly it is not for the benefit of Jeff it is for
the benefit of other's looking for an alternative.


Can you clarify the difference between (potential) constructive 
criticism of your testing methods and interpretation of data, vs. an 
attack?  Or is anything I say in response to be considered an attack 
before I even say it?  No censorship has occurred here.  If you're going 
to act like any slightly discouraging remark is a violation of free 
speech, what are we to make of your *preemptive* discouragement?


___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Meta

[Stephan von Krawczynski]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:05:56 -0500
Whit Blauvelt  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 08:37:03AM -0500, F. Ozbek wrote:
> [...]
> We've not only got freedom of speech. We've got freedom of guns. Still,
> walking into the meeting with your gun drawn will get you viewed as rude or
> worse. We're supposed to be data pros here, not cowboys. So, data please.
> 
> Best,
> Whit

Whit, just for the sake of it.

Jeffs method of discussion is to lengthen every idea/opinion/fact to an
academical epos. This is why sometimes you simply don't have the time to
argue with him, especially if you are not paid but wasting your own spare time.
Additionally one very basic fact should be accepted. People are on different
levels of experience on this _user_ list.
Some have tested the software for years and experienced the lacks and dead
ends. Some don't. Quite some of the pro-arguers do not accept experiences as
long as you do not hard-proove them within a lenghty article starting by
definition of the alphabet used.
It is not really helpful to hit everyone writing two sentences with "data
please". Quite some data can be found if you really care. 
But even the long pdf someone posted lately with comparison data has
significant lacks in presentation.
I would love to see some acceptance around the major problems the software has
currently, because without acceptance there is no way to true solution.
Again, the design is impressive, only the implementation does not keep up.
Don't trust my words, look for the comparisons and judge for yourself.

-- 
Regards,
Stephan

___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Fw: performance evaluation of distributed storage systems

[Brian Candler]

>I'm a phd student and as a part of my research I've compared
>performance of different distributed storage systems (Gluster,
>Openstack, Compuverde).

Compuverde? That's new to me. Oh wow.

"Software defined storage just got 400 % more efficient."

"Compuverde Gateway read and writes structured data 250 % more
efficient(sic) than well-known market competitors."

"The Compuverde software will help businesses lower their energy costs
with(sic) up to 50%"

I have not seen such a comprehensive pile of BS for a long time - thank you
for making my day.

The 400% claim?
http://compuverde.com/object-store/performance/
Vaguely-described tests against an unspecified competitor.

Finally:

"The Compuverde Object Store software features patented and patent-pending
technology"

The PHB will be impressed.

Regarding the PDF evaluation: I only skimmed it, but what exact version of
glusterfs did you use?  There have been a lot of changes between 3.2.5 and
3.3.0 for example.  Also:

"3.1.4 Gluster
...
The communication protocol between the load generating clients and the proxy
servers is NFS/CIFS"

So which was it? And what are "proxy servers" in the context of a Gluster
test?

Gluster supports NFS exporting natively from one brick. CIFS requires using
Samba to re-export a glusterfs mount. However I would have thought using the
native glusterfs FUSE client would be a fairer test.

Regards,

Brian.
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Meta

[F. Ozbek]

On 01/22/2013 09:05 AM, Whit Blauvelt wrote:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 08:37:03AM -0500, F. Ozbek wrote:


I am surprised at Jeff's responses. What happened to freedom of speech?
I can't say we tested 3 products and 2 failed and one passed our tests?


In fairness, you didn't say you'd been testing for 3 months. And you still
haven't said what the tests were. Jeff has suggested a range of tests where
Moose should be expected to fail, and Gluster not. He has also mentioned
areas where Gluster doesn't lead the pack. And he's posted something of his
methods and results in various places. Facts do not insult. But opinions
without facts can. It's not enough that you've got the facts hidden away
somewhere. You should present the data along with the opinions. Without
data, it's about you - whether we trust your reputation, of which you have
none here. No offense. With data, it's not longer just about personalities.

We've not only got freedom of speech. We've got freedom of guns. Still,
walking into the meeting with your gun drawn will get you viewed as rude or
worse. We're supposed to be data pros here, not cowboys. So, data please.

Best,
Whit



Whit,

I seems to me, when Jon asked for an alternative to glusterfs and I said to Jon 
you can look at
moosefs, I should be able to do that without 3 months of testing and data.

However, it just turns out that we have the data and the tests, so we will
post it here. I have this feeling that the moment we do, Jeff will start
attacking us but honestly it is not for the benefit of Jeff it is for the 
benefit
of other's looking for an alternative.

Best,
Fevzi
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Fw: performance evaluation of distributed storage systems

[Sabuj Pattanayek]

I didn't see anything in the paper that mentioned the specs on your
load generating clients? Where can I get your test scripts for the
structured filesystem tests other than specsfs2k8? I assume you used
distributed + replicated with gluster? Is compuverde using a similar
algorithm or is it striping files? You mentioned using NFS/CIFS. NFS &
CIFS can have different performance characteristics so were the graph
results from NFS or CIFS and what versions, mounting protocols, etc?

Found this interesting tidbit in wiki :

January 2012 Compuverde, Blekinge Institute of Technology and Ericsson
received recognition from the Development of Knowledge and Competence
(KK-stiftelsen) in Sweden for a joint venture project on big data
storage solutions and cloud computing.

:)

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Sogand Shirinbab
 wrote:
> - Forwarded by Sogand Shirinbab/Staff/BTH on 2013-01-22 10:55 -
>
> From:Sogand Shirinbab/Staff/BTH
> To:gluster-users@gluster.org
> Date:2013-01-16 14:35
> Subject:performance evaluation of distributed storage systems
> 
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm a phd student and as a part of my research I've compared performance of
> different distributed storage systems (Gluster, Openstack, Compuverde). I
> would like you as an expert in your product to give me feedback on my work.
> What do you think about the way we've setup the system? does it affects the
> Gluster performance?
>
> please find my paper as attachment to this mail!
>
> Best Regards,
> SogandShirinbab
>
>
> Blekinge Tekniska Högskolan
> 371 79 Karlskrona
> 0455 -385709
>
>
> ___
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users@gluster.org
> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Meta

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 08:37:03AM -0500, F. Ozbek wrote:

> I am surprised at Jeff's responses. What happened to freedom of speech?
> I can't say we tested 3 products and 2 failed and one passed our tests?

In fairness, you didn't say you'd been testing for 3 months. And you still
haven't said what the tests were. Jeff has suggested a range of tests where
Moose should be expected to fail, and Gluster not. He has also mentioned
areas where Gluster doesn't lead the pack. And he's posted something of his
methods and results in various places. Facts do not insult. But opinions
without facts can. It's not enough that you've got the facts hidden away
somewhere. You should present the data along with the opinions. Without
data, it's about you - whether we trust your reputation, of which you have
none here. No offense. With data, it's not longer just about personalities.

We've not only got freedom of speech. We've got freedom of guns. Still,
walking into the meeting with your gun drawn will get you viewed as rude or
worse. We're supposed to be data pros here, not cowboys. So, data please.

Best,
Whit
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Data migration and rebalance

[F. Ozbek]

On 01/22/2013 08:37 AM, F. Ozbek wrote:

I am surprised at Jeff's responses. What happened to freedom speech?

I meant to say "freedom of speech"
___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users

Re: [Gluster-users] Data migration and rebalance

[F. Ozbek]

On 01/20/2013 11:17 AM, Brian Candler wrote:

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 04:04:43PM -0500, Jeff Darcy wrote:

On 01/19/2013 01:43 PM, F. Ozbek wrote:

try moosefs. http://www.moosefs.org/

we tried both gluster and ceph, they both failed in many ways.
moosefs passed the same tests with flying colors.

moose is your friend.


Don't you think it's rather bad form to come on a mailing list for
one project and recommend a competitor based on FUD?


To me it sounds to me like he's suggesting an alternative based on actual
testing and real-world experience.  Or are you saying he has an undisclosed
connection to the moosefs project?  I googled "ozbek moosefs" and got no
hits.


Brian,

You are correct. I am suggesting an alternative based on actual testing.
We have been testing glusterfs , ceph and moosefs for the last 3 months.
These tests are not scientific tests however we tried to be as uniform
and methodical as possible.

We have no connection to moosefs other than possibly using their product
in the future.

My initial post to Jon's email from November was to offer him an alternative
to glusterfs which is what he was asking.

I am surprised at Jeff's responses. What happened to freedom speech?
I can't say we tested 3 products and 2 failed and one passed our tests?

Thanks
Fevzi O. Ozbek




___
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@gluster.org
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users