Re: [Gluster-devel] Multiple NFS Servers (Gluster NFS in 3.x, unfsd, knfsd, etc.)

[Shehjar Tikoo]

Martin Fick wrote:
> --- On Thu, 1/7/10, Gordan Bobic <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Shehjar Tikoo wrote:
> > > Gordan Bobic wrote:
> > > > Martin Fick wrote:
> > > > > --- On Wed, 1/6/10, Gordan Bobic <address@hidden>
> > wrote:
> > > > I don't think it would be wasted if it
> > > > includes NLM since unfsd does not do locking!
> > > It does not do decent security either. One of our
> > > goals is to implement kerberos5 based authentication. We also
> > > want to support NFS over RDMA and NFSACLs. For extending to
> > > these, unfsd code is highly limiting.
> > So why exactly use NFS instead of GlusterFS with
> > server-side brick assembly? What is the advantage? I cannot
> > see one either in terms of performance or functionality.
> > This is what I would be using if I could get that setup to
> > work without bugginess (e.g. bug 186) and crashing (see
> > other emails on this thread, will try to re-create and
> > provide backtraces).
>
> The last time I evaluated GlusterFS, it did not support 
> graceful server disconnection/rebooting (i.e. clients with 
> open files will see errors instead of blocking).  While it 
> would be awesome of this were simply "fixed" at the 
> GlusterFS level, if the NFS xlator provides this 
> functionality it would be a big win.  This feature is the
> single feature keeping me from using GlusterFS to this 
> day.  I look forward to either of theses solutions so that
> I could use GlusterFS,

Yes. Gluster NFS server reboots work fine with the NFS xlator.
The other aspect is the disconnections from and reboots of GlusterFS
backends/replicas. That is handled by replicate and distribute
self-heal but I havent yet come around to the cluster availability
tests with NFS yet. Soon..

-Shehjar

> -Martin
>
>
>
>       
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel