Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:43:58 +0200
From:      Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de>
To:        Outback Dingo <outbackdingo@gmail.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: What happened with the GlusterFS port?
Message-ID:  <7FAD7618-593D-4797-9EE9-BA36A87CE79B@ultra-secure.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAKYr3zybY3hdXLpL-fCvqs%2B=syZ7uBE-FiXj%2BXcRGG1YoUZhOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <28234312-7982-49F5-83FD-865649AA9CCB@ultra-secure.de> <1397850220.58880.16.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <CAKYr3zybY3hdXLpL-fCvqs%2B=syZ7uBE-FiXj%2BXcRGG1YoUZhOQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

Am 18.04.2014 um 21:51 schrieb Outback Dingo <outbackdingo@gmail.com>:

>=20
>=20
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Sean Bruno <sbruno@ignoranthack.me> =
wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 21:30 +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > does anybody know where the effort to port GluserFS to FreeBSD went?
> >
> > There=92s this (very) outdated wiki-page:
> > https://wiki.freebsd.org/GlusterFS
> >
> > and there=92s the SoC project:
> > https://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCode2013/GlusterFSport
> >
> > But nothing seems to have happened after it was finished.
>=20
>=20
> The port made decent progress over the GSOC period, but no, it never
> gained any traction to end up in the ports collection.
>=20
>=20


That is very unfortunate.



> not to hijack the thread but, glusters ancient, use riak-cs, or swift, =
or port leofs
> =20
>=20


Currently, the unavailability of GlusterFS in FreeBSD (vs. the =
availability in Linux) is sort of a deal-breaker for some projects here.

There are, regrettably, a large number of legacy applications the rely =
on a traditional filesystem.
An equally large number of customers continue to rely on these same =
applications, for the foreseeable future (and they pay us to run the =
stuff).
Traditionally, I would have just suggested a ZFS NFS fileserver - but it =
adds a single point of failure, manual failover with ZFS sends/HAST etc.

GlusterFS would eliminate this (in situations where the customer needs a =
number of servers anyway).

I guess, it won=92t happen until somebody is paid to do it (SoC sort of =
proofed that) - directly or indirectly.






Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7FAD7618-593D-4797-9EE9-BA36A87CE79B>