Re: [Gluster-devel] Proposal: GlusterFS Quattro

[Anand Avati]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Jeff Darcy <address@hidden> wrote:

As a counterpoint to the current GlusterFS proposal, I've written up a bunch of
ideas that I'm collectively calling GlusterFS Quattro.  It's in Google Docs so
that people can comment.  Please do.  ;)

http://goo.gl/yE3O4j

Thanks for sharing this Jeff. Towards the end of my visit to the Bangalore Red Hat office this time (from which I just returned a couple days ago) we got to discuss the 4.x proposal from a high level (less about specifics, more about "in general"). A concern raised by many was that if a new release is a "too radical" (analogy given was samba4 vs samba3 - coincidentally the same major number), it would result in way too much confusion and overhead (e.g lots of people want to stick with 3.x as 4.x is not yet stable, and this results in 3.x getting "stabler" and be a negative incentive to move over to 4.x, especially when distributions/ISVs are concerned). The conclusion was that, the 4.x proposal would be downsized to only have the management layer changes, while the data layer (EHT, stripe etc) changes be introduced piece by piece (as they get ready) independent of whether the current master is for 3.x or 4.x.

Given the background, it only makes sense to retain the guiding principles of the feedback, and reconcile the changes proposed to management layer in the two proposals and retain the scope of 4.x to management changes.

Thoughts?

Avati