Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If I understand this correctly, the complaints are:

- Terminology -- Seriously? It's not a very strong complaint.

- Snapshotting -- have to use qcow2 for this rather than native file system support for snapshotting an individual file

- Have to use Layer2 separation for security -- but this should be done any way, shouldn't it? There's no reason to trust this to application level security, and I there's any need at all for this type of security, L2 is the only way to go.

Personally, I think Ceph is the future, and I also have personal reasons for wanting Ceph to succeed. Having dealt a bit with both communities, I think it's clear that Ceph is going to be the standard go-to destributed file system soon, and I hope to switch our gluster filesystems to it soon (come on POSIX FS layer!). So I kind of have it in the bag for Ceph.

However, I don't see these complaints as very strong. I'm only a dabbler with OpenStack, but fairly experienced with Gluster and its warts.



Terminology is not a problem:) It is just a little bit misleading when you start implementing Cinder with Glusterfs.

Complaints are mostly about integration of both tools. I dont intend to discredit Openstack/Glusterfs in particular.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: