Which FUSE version is considered as stable and recommended? And is it the one which the development team is using? KwangErn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20081106/d2fe27ef/attachment.html>
Most of us use 2.7.3glfs10 avati 2008/11/6 KwangErn Liew <ke.liew at gmail.com>> Which FUSE version is considered as stable and recommended? And is it the > one which the development team is using? > > > KwangErn > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > >-- If I traveled to the end of the rainbow As Dame Fortune did intend, Murphy would be there to tell me The pot's at the other end. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20081107/ab424e1a/attachment.html>
pi?, 07 lis 2008, 15:35:48 +0530, Anand Avati napisa?(a):> Most of us use 2.7.3glfs10Is this module only or library or both? Regards. -- rash at konto pl
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Keith Freedman <freedman at freeformit.com>wrote:> > I'd prefer gluster work with the latest version > that's distributed with the operating systems. > but gluster doesn't seem to play well with fuse 2.7.4 which I see as a > problem. > the dev's need to start testing with the latest > version of FUSE, because presumably it fixes bugs > that are present in 2.7.3 and possibly has other enhancements. > > locking us into an older version , even if it's "optimized" isn't a good > idea. >True. As long as we are informed which versions are tested and works, it's good enough. :) KwangErn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20081114/cabe3497/attachment.html>
On Thursday 13 November 2008 20:43:10 Keith Freedman wrote:> At 04:54 AM 11/13/2008, KwangErn Liew wrote: > >2008/11/7 Rash <rash at konto.pl> > > > >pi?, 07 lis 2008, 15:35:48 +0530, Anand Avati napisa??(a):> > > Most of us use 2.7.3glfs10 > > > >Is this module only or library or both? > > > > > >Am guessin' it's both. > > > >Am afraid that FUSE can be the culprit for > >potential bugs in GlusterFS. It'd be best if > >there's a recommended and standardised use of a particular FUSE version. > > I believe he was telling you that 2.7.3glfs10 is > the recommended and standardised FUSE version. > > you can download it form gluster's website. > > I'd prefer gluster work with the latest version > that's distributed with the operating systems. > but gluster doesn't seem to play well with fuse 2.7.4 which I see as a > problem. the dev's need to start testing with the latest > version of FUSE, because presumably it fixes bugs > that are present in 2.7.3 and possibly has other enhancements. > > locking us into an older version , even if it's "optimized" isn't a good > idea. >I'll try to produce a patch for 2.7.4 by the end of the week. Marian
Well the problem is a little more complicated now. The kernel has FUSE code in it now and that code is not the same code that's in the latest FUSE. If similar transitions in the past can be used as a guide, the linux kernel takes precedence as the defacto repository. I think glusterfs should decide how it wants to handle this. If you look at recent history glusterfs would future-proof itself by selecting the FUSE kernel source as the target to be compatible with. Since the separate FUSE will likely become deprecated. On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:24 +0100, KwangErn Liew wrote:> Which FUSE version is considered as stable and recommended? And is it > the one which the development team is using? > > > KwangErn > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://zresearch.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users