From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 19 17:14:46 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D31856;
 Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:14:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.in-addr.com (noop.in-addr.com [208.58.23.51])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A606E17B5;
 Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:14:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gjp by mail.in-addr.com with local (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <gpalmer@freebsd.org>)
 id 1WbYqZ-000MRq-UG; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:14:35 -0400
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:14:35 -0400
From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
To: Outback Dingo <outbackdingo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What happened with the GlusterFS port?
Message-ID: <20140419171435.GD15884@in-addr.com>
References: <28234312-7982-49F5-83FD-865649AA9CCB@ultra-secure.de>
 <1397850220.58880.16.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com>
 <CAKYr3zybY3hdXLpL-fCvqs+=syZ7uBE-FiXj+XcRGG1YoUZhOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1397855188.58880.26.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com>
 <CAKYr3zy_bQUiE0AFMvkw2crAp2uvhfwbvcbsCmS0ZAg5TLeL0w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKYr3zy_bQUiE0AFMvkw2crAp2uvhfwbvcbsCmS0ZAg5TLeL0w@mail.gmail.com>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gpalmer@freebsd.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.in-addr.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:14:46 -0000

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 05:16:09PM -0400, Outback Dingo wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Sean Bruno <sbruno@ignoranthack.me> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 15:51 -0400, Outback Dingo wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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???s this (very) outdated wiki-page:
> > >         > https://wiki.freebsd.org/GlusterFS
> > >         >
> > >         > and there???s the SoC project:
> > >         > https://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCode2013/GlusterFSport
> > >         >
> > >         > But nothing seems to have happened after it was finished.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >         The port made decent progress over the GSOC period, but no, it
> > >         never
> > >         gained any traction to end up in the ports collection.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > not to hijack the thread but, glusters ancient, use riak-cs, or swift,
> > > or port leofs
> > >
> > >
> > >         sean
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think swift and then ceph to be honest.  At least that's what my
> > universe looks like.
> >
> 
> does ceph run on freebsd yet ??? i knew there was a port in the works but
> like the glusterfs ports, it seems to have died also

http://wiki.ceph.com/Planning/Blueprints/Emperor/Increasing_Ceph_portability

Note: from that page it says "Currently building on OSX 10.8 and FreeBSD 9.1"

Unfortunately the github location linked to on the page doesn't exist

Building ceph 0.72.2 on FreeBSD is non-trivial by the looks of it due to
too many non-portable Linuxisms.  Hope their porting effort moves forward.

Regards,

Gary