If anyone has kept up with Samba development, they reworked their code and how they write their code for the 4.x series. This was because the development team felt the code was somewhat unstructured and not as transparent. They also now have an IDL compiler available.<br>
<br>If the Samba team are anything to go by as far as how code should be developed in an open source environment, then perhaps it is time GlusterFS did take a look at this and follow the example. I for one wouldn't want to see a project I began be too difficult for others to debug or add features to because I had let the code become too convoluted. And without sufficent code commenting? What are you thinking?<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/7/6 Geoff Kassel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gkassel@users.sourceforge.net">gkassel@users.sourceforge.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Filipe,<br>
I think if the GlusterFS devs actually implement the QA process they've<br>
(allegedly) had since September last year, that would go a long way to<br>
improving stability and reliability across the whole application.<br>
<br>
If the QA process as described on the Wiki was actually implemented, we<br>
would most likely not see two critical data corruption bugs in two<br>
consecutive major releases, and functionality like DHT and AFR that has been<br>
around for years might have a chance of working as described.<br>
<br>
As much as I would like to see features like active self-heal and non-stop<br>
I/O, perhaps it's time for a GlusterFS feature freeze.<br>
<br>
During this freeze they could do a proper human-eyeballs-on-code style code<br>
review and get their QA processes and testing frameworks developed properly.<br>
In doing so, hopefully provide us with the kind of reliability and stability<br>
that we should see in a piece of software with the 2.x tag.<br>
<br>
Heck, maybe they could even submit their project to Coverity for analysis,<br>
like I've suggested before. It *is* free for open source projects, and the<br>
results come highly regarded.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Geoff.<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Filipe Maia wrote:<br>
> I strongly agree with both Gordan and Geoff when it comes to stability.<br>
> I've been trying to get a simple unify setup (now dht) working to<br>
> replace my existing nfs file servers and i'm yet to achieve the<br>
> necessary stability.<br>
> This kind of feature has long been in GlusterFS and should be stable<br>
> enough by now, but according to my experience that is not the case.<br>
> I would urge the GlusterFS developers to focus on stability above all<br>
> else because that is an absolutely essential quality for a software to<br>
> be usable, specially one as critical as a file system.<br>
><br>
> Filipe<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@nongnu.org">Gluster-devel@nongnu.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-devel@nongnu.org">Gluster-devel@nongnu.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>