On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Alex Attarian
<address@hidden> wrote:
where do you get the idea that I'm against glusterd? I'm perfectly fine with 3.x versions, those are still maintainable. But if you want to add Zookeper now, on top of Java requirement, where is it going to end?
I think it's really clear that Jeff understands the concern with Zookeeper from his earlier answers.
Right now things are very easy to maintain in any of the 3.x versions, right inside glusterd. Why not keep that? Even all these other functionalities that others want and you really want to implement for scalability and flexibility, they could all be built with your cluster on gluster solution.
I really don't want to worry about Zookeeper or Doozer when I run gluster. Can we at least consider that approach?
It sounds like they understand that we as users care about simplicity. In terms of Doozer, the idea is growing on me. It's less than 1500 lines of very readable Go code. We could get a lot worse, and while I'm partial to the "Gluster on Gluster" idea I don't know enough of the issues to say if it's a good idea. It could very well be that it'd work great, but I'm also sympathetic to the desire not to want to maintain this code if they don't have to. In that respect Doozer seems small and simple enough that it'd be easy to package up so it'd be transparent for users.
Vidar
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel