<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Whit Blauvelt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:whit.gluster@transpect.com" target="_blank">whit.gluster@transpect.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:09:39AM +0530, Amar Tumballi wrote:<br>
<br>
> >I tried it to host Virtual Machines images and it didn't work at all. Was<br>
> > hoping to be able to spread the IOPS more through the cluster. That's<br>
> > part of what I was trying to say on the email I sent earlier today.<br>
><br>
> I saw that mail and I agree that the target of 3.3.0 was to make<br>
> glusterfs more stable and get the features which would make Virtual<br>
> machine hosting on GlusterFS a possibility by 3.4.0 time-frame.<br>
<br>
</div>Odd thing is, there have been statements going back a year saying that<br>
Gluster would be ready for VM hosting in the 3.3 version. On the one hand,<br>
it's appreciated that Gluster is pursuing ambitious goals. On the other,<br>
when a goal is dropped from a release that many people are waiting on a long<br>
time, specifically because of that advertised goal, it would be common<br>
courtesy (and good business practice) to announce the change in target in<br>
all the places where it had previously been stated. Like this list.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Whit,</div><div> There has been no drop in goal. There are many parts to "supporting a VM workload". The goals listed for 3.3 are definitely met - to make VMs work good enough (fix self-heal locking issues, some FUSE upstream work for supporting O_DIRECT etc.) However, for 3.4 we have bigger goals of supporting VM image use case in a much better way - libglusterfsclient integration for QEMU etc. This was what Amar was referring to. I hope I clarified your doubt, and apologies for the confusion.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Avati</div><div><br></div></div>