Re: [Gluster-devel] Bricks as first-class objects

[Jeff Darcy]

On 01/22/2013 01:07 PM, Jay Vyas wrote:
> 2 - I assume you would rather discourage people from custom coding the brick
> logic - since its the volume level of abstraction that you want people normally
> to work from - right... ?

I don't know if we should discourage them.  Random placement serves well in a 
great many cases, but the issue of heterogeneous storage and placing particular 
files onto particular bricks comes up all the time.  What we should do is give 
users the maximum flexibility to express their preferred policy, but then make 
the application of that policy as automagical as we can.

> 3 - Are there optimizations that happen in the way the gluster fuse mounts
> work, wherein volumes sort of assume that the bricks aren't moving around
> beneath them.?

To the extent that there are, we already need to deal with them (and do) when 
we add, remove, or replace bricks.  None of these operations fundamentally 
change; only the way they're expressed might.