Gluster users - Jul 2018 - Proposal to mark few features as Deprecated / SunSet from Version 5.0

*Hi all,Over last 12 years of Gluster, we have developed many features, and
continue to support most of it till now. But along the way, we have figured
out better methods of doing things. Also we are not actively maintaining
some of these features.We are now thinking of cleaning up some of these
?unsupported? features, and mark them as ?SunSet? (i.e., would be totally
taken out of codebase in following releases) in next upcoming release,
v5.0. The release notes will provide options for smoothly migrating to the
supported configurations.If you are using any of these features, do let us
know, so that we can help you with ?migration?.. Also, we are happy to
guide new developers to work on those components which are not actively
being maintained by current set of developers.List of features hitting
sunset:?cluster/stripe? translator:This translator was developed very early
in the evolution of GlusterFS, and addressed one of the very common
question of Distributed FS, which is ?What happens if one of my file is
bigger than the available brick. Say, I have 2 TB hard drive, exported in
glusterfs, my file is 3 TB?. While it solved the purpose, it was very hard
to handle failure scenarios, and give a real good experience to our users
with this feature. Over the time, Gluster solved the problem with it?s
?Shard? feature, which solves the problem in much better way, and provides
much better solution with existing well supported stack. Hence the proposal
for Deprecation.If you are using this feature, then do write to us, as it
needs a proper migration from existing volume to a new full supported
volume type before you upgrade.?storage/bd? translator:This feature got
into the code base 5 years back with this patch
<http://review.gluster.org/4809>[1]. Plan was to use a block device
directly as a brick, which would help to handle disk-image storage much
easily in glusterfs.As the feature is not getting more contribution, and we
are not seeing any user traction on this, would like to propose for
Deprecation.If you are using the feature, plan to move to a supported
gluster volume configuration, and have your setup ?supported? before
upgrading to your new gluster version.?RDMA? transport support:Gluster
started supporting RDMA while ib-verbs was still new, and very high-end
infra around that time were using Infiniband. Engineers did work with
Mellanox, and got the technology into GlusterFS for better data migration,
data copy. While current day kernels support very good speed with IPoIB
module itself, and there are no more bandwidth for experts in these area to
maintain the feature, we recommend migrating over to TCP (IP based) network
for your volume.If you are successfully using RDMA transport, do get in
touch with us to prioritize the migration plan for your volume. Plan is to
work on this after the release, so by version 6.0, we will have a cleaner
transport code, which just needs to support one type.?Tiering?
featureGluster?s tiering feature which was planned to be providing an
option to keep your ?hot? data in different location than your cold data,
so one can get better performance. While we saw some users for the feature,
it needs much more attention to be completely bug free. At the time, we are
not having any active maintainers for the feature, and hence suggesting to
take it out of the ?supported? tag.If you are willing to take it up, and
maintain it, do let us know, and we are happy to assist you.If you are
already using tiering feature, before upgrading, make sure to do gluster
volume tier detach all the bricks before upgrading to next release. Also,
we recommend you to use features like dmcache on your LVM setup to get best
performance from bricks.?Quota?This is a call out for ?Quota? feature, to
let you all know that it will be ?no new development? state. While this
feature is ?actively? in use by many people, the challenges we have in
accounting mechanisms involved, has made it hard to achieve good
performance with the feature. Also, the amount of extended attribute
get/set operations while using the feature is not very ideal. Hence we
recommend our users to move towards setting quota on backend bricks
directly (ie, XFS project quota), or to use different volumes for different
directories etc.As the feature wouldn?t be deprecated immediately, the
feature doesn?t need a migration plan when you upgrade to newer version,
but if you are a new user, we wouldn?t recommend setting quota feature. By
the release dates, we will be publishing our best alternatives guide for
gluster?s current quota feature.Note that if you want to contribute to the
feature, we have project quota based issue open
<https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184>[2] Happy to get
contributions, and help in getting a newer approach to
Quota.------------------------------These are our set of initial features
which we propose to take out of ?fully? supported features. While we are in
the process of making the user/developer experience of the project much
better with providing well maintained codebase, we may come up with few
more set of features which we may possibly consider to move out of support,
and hence keep watching this space.[1] - http://review.gluster.org/4809
<http://review.gluster.org/4809>[2] -
https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184
<https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184>Regards,Vijay, Shyam,
Amar*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20180719/5e89a802/attachment.html>

Too bad the RDMA will be abandoned. It's the perfect transport for intranode
processing and data sync.

I currently use RDMA on a computational cluster between nodes and gluster
storage. The older IB cards will support 10G IP and 40G IB. I've had some
success with connectivity but am still faltering with fuse performance. As soon
as some retired gear is reconnected I'll have a test bed for HA NFS over
RDMA to computational cluster and 10G IP to non-cluster systems.

But it looks like Gluster 6 is a ways away so maybe I'll get more hardware
or time to pitch in some code after groking enough IB.

Thanks for the heads up and all the work to date. 

On July 19, 2018 2:56:35 AM EDT, Amar Tumballi <atumball at redhat.com>
wrote:
>*Hi all,Over last 12 years of Gluster, we have developed many features,
>and
>continue to support most of it till now. But along the way, we have
>figured
>out better methods of doing things. Also we are not actively
>maintaining
>some of these features.We are now thinking of cleaning up some of these
>?unsupported? features, and mark them as ?SunSet? (i.e., would be
>totally
>taken out of codebase in following releases) in next upcoming release,
>v5.0. The release notes will provide options for smoothly migrating to
>the
>supported configurations.If you are using any of these features, do let
>us
>know, so that we can help you with ?migration?.. Also, we are happy to
>guide new developers to work on those components which are not actively
>being maintained by current set of developers.List of features hitting
>sunset:?cluster/stripe? translator:This translator was developed very
>early
>in the evolution of GlusterFS, and addressed one of the very common
>question of Distributed FS, which is ?What happens if one of my file is
>bigger than the available brick. Say, I have 2 TB hard drive, exported
>in
>glusterfs, my file is 3 TB?. While it solved the purpose, it was very
>hard
>to handle failure scenarios, and give a real good experience to our
>users
>with this feature. Over the time, Gluster solved the problem with it?s
>?Shard? feature, which solves the problem in much better way, and
>provides
>much better solution with existing well supported stack. Hence the
>proposal
>for Deprecation.If you are using this feature, then do write to us, as
>it
>needs a proper migration from existing volume to a new full supported
>volume type before you upgrade.?storage/bd? translator:This feature got
>into the code base 5 years back with this patch
><http://review.gluster.org/4809>[1]. Plan was to use a block device
>directly as a brick, which would help to handle disk-image storage much
>easily in glusterfs.As the feature is not getting more contribution,
>and we
>are not seeing any user traction on this, would like to propose for
>Deprecation.If you are using the feature, plan to move to a supported
>gluster volume configuration, and have your setup ?supported? before
>upgrading to your new gluster version.?RDMA? transport support:Gluster
>started supporting RDMA while ib-verbs was still new, and very high-end
>infra around that time were using Infiniband. Engineers did work with
>Mellanox, and got the technology into GlusterFS for better data
>migration,
>data copy. While current day kernels support very good speed with IPoIB
>module itself, and there are no more bandwidth for experts in these
>area to
>maintain the feature, we recommend migrating over to TCP (IP based)
>network
>for your volume.If you are successfully using RDMA transport, do get in
>touch with us to prioritize the migration plan for your volume. Plan is
>to
>work on this after the release, so by version 6.0, we will have a
>cleaner
>transport code, which just needs to support one type.?Tiering?
>featureGluster?s tiering feature which was planned to be providing an
>option to keep your ?hot? data in different location than your cold
>data,
>so one can get better performance. While we saw some users for the
>feature,
>it needs much more attention to be completely bug free. At the time, we
>are
>not having any active maintainers for the feature, and hence suggesting
>to
>take it out of the ?supported? tag.If you are willing to take it up,
>and
>maintain it, do let us know, and we are happy to assist you.If you are
>already using tiering feature, before upgrading, make sure to do
>gluster
>volume tier detach all the bricks before upgrading to next release.
>Also,
>we recommend you to use features like dmcache on your LVM setup to get
>best
>performance from bricks.?Quota?This is a call out for ?Quota? feature,
>to
>let you all know that it will be ?no new development? state. While this
>feature is ?actively? in use by many people, the challenges we have in
>accounting mechanisms involved, has made it hard to achieve good
>performance with the feature. Also, the amount of extended attribute
>get/set operations while using the feature is not very ideal. Hence we
>recommend our users to move towards setting quota on backend bricks
>directly (ie, XFS project quota), or to use different volumes for
>different
>directories etc.As the feature wouldn?t be deprecated immediately, the
>feature doesn?t need a migration plan when you upgrade to newer
>version,
>but if you are a new user, we wouldn?t recommend setting quota feature.
>By
>the release dates, we will be publishing our best alternatives guide
>for
>gluster?s current quota feature.Note that if you want to contribute to
>the
>feature, we have project quota based issue open
><https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184>[2] Happy to get
>contributions, and help in getting a newer approach to
>Quota.------------------------------These are our set of initial
>features
>which we propose to take out of ?fully? supported features. While we
>are in
>the process of making the user/developer experience of the project much
>better with providing well maintained codebase, we may come up with few
>more set of features which we may possibly consider to move out of
>support,
>and hence keep watching this space.[1] - http://review.gluster.org/4809
><http://review.gluster.org/4809>[2] -
>https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184
><https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184>Regards,Vijay, Shyam,
>Amar*
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. All tyopes are thumb related and
reflect authenticity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20180719/7653fd3e/attachment.html>

Hi Amar,

Just wanted to say that I think the quota feature in GlusterFS is really useful.
In my case I use it on one volume where I have many cloud installations (mostly
files) for different people and all these need to have a different quota set on
a specific directory. The GlusterFS quota allows me nicely to manage that which
would not be possible in the application directly. It would really be an
overhead for me to for example to have one volume per installation just because
of setting the max size like that.

I hope that this feature can continue to exist.

Best regards,
M.

??????? Original Message ???????
On July 19, 2018 8:56 AM, Amar Tumballi <atumball at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Over last 12 years of Gluster, we have developed many features, and
continue to support most of it till now. But along the way, we have figured out
better methods of doing things. Also we are not actively maintaining some of
these features.
>
> We are now thinking of cleaning up some of these ?unsupported? features,
and mark them as ?SunSet? (i.e., would be totally taken out of codebase in
following releases) in next upcoming release, v5.0. The release notes will
provide options for smoothly migrating to the supported configurations.
>
> If you are using any of these features, do let us know, so that we can help
you with ?migration?.. Also, we are happy to guide new developers to work on
those components which are not actively being maintained by current set of
developers.
>
> List of features hitting sunset:
>
> ?cluster/stripe? translator:
>
> This translator was developed very early in the evolution of GlusterFS, and
addressed one of the very common question of Distributed FS, which is ?What
happens if one of my file is bigger than the available brick. Say, I have 2 TB
hard drive, exported in glusterfs, my file is 3 TB?. While it solved the
purpose, it was very hard to handle failure scenarios, and give a real good
experience to our users with this feature. Over the time, Gluster solved the
problem with it?s ?Shard? feature, which solves the problem in much better way,
and provides much better solution with existing well supported stack. Hence the
proposal for Deprecation.
>
> If you are using this feature, then do write to us, as it needs a proper
migration from existing volume to a new full supported volume type before you
upgrade.
>
> ?storage/bd? translator:
>
> This feature got into the code base 5 years back with this
[patch](http://review.gluster.org/4809)[1]. Plan was to use a block device
directly as a brick, which would help to handle disk-image storage much easily
in glusterfs.
>
> As the feature is not getting more contribution, and we are not seeing any
user traction on this, would like to propose for Deprecation.
>
> If you are using the feature, plan to move to a supported gluster volume
configuration, and have your setup ?supported? before upgrading to your new
gluster version.
>
> ?RDMA? transport support:
>
> Gluster started supporting RDMA while ib-verbs was still new, and very
high-end infra around that time were using Infiniband. Engineers did work with
Mellanox, and got the technology into GlusterFS for better data migration, data
copy. While current day kernels support very good speed with IPoIB module
itself, and there are no more bandwidth for experts in these area to maintain
the feature, we recommend migrating over to TCP (IP based) network for your
volume.
>
> If you are successfully using RDMA transport, do get in touch with us to
prioritize the migration plan for your volume. Plan is to work on this after the
release, so by version 6.0, we will have a cleaner transport code, which just
needs to support one type.
>
> ?Tiering? feature
>
> Gluster?s tiering feature which was planned to be providing an option to
keep your ?hot? data in different location than your cold data, so one can get
better performance. While we saw some users for the feature, it needs much more
attention to be completely bug free. At the time, we are not having any active
maintainers for the feature, and hence suggesting to take it out of the
?supported? tag.
>
> If you are willing to take it up, and maintain it, do let us know, and we
are happy to assist you.
>
> If you are already using tiering feature, before upgrading, make sure to do
gluster volume tier detach all the bricks before upgrading to next release.
Also, we recommend you to use features like dmcache on your LVM setup to get
best performance from bricks.
>
> ?Quota?
>
> This is a call out for ?Quota? feature, to let you all know that it will be
?no new development? state. While this feature is ?actively? in use by many
people, the challenges we have in accounting mechanisms involved, has made it
hard to achieve good performance with the feature. Also, the amount of extended
attribute get/set operations while using the feature is not very ideal. Hence we
recommend our users to move towards setting quota on backend bricks directly
(ie, XFS project quota), or to use different volumes for different directories
etc.
>
> As the feature wouldn?t be deprecated immediately, the feature doesn?t need
a migration plan when you upgrade to newer version, but if you are a new user,
we wouldn?t recommend setting quota feature. By the release dates, we will be
publishing our best alternatives guide for gluster?s current quota feature.
>
> Note that if you want to contribute to the feature, we have [project quota
based issue open](https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184)[2] Happy to
get contributions, and help in getting a newer approach to Quota.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> These are our set of initial features which we propose to take out of
?fully? supported features. While we are in the process of making the
user/developer experience of the project much better with providing well
maintained codebase, we may come up with few more set of features which we may
possibly consider to move out of support, and hence keep watching this space.
>
> [1] - http://review.gluster.org/4809
>
> [2] - https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184
>
> Regards,
>
> Vijay, Shyam, Amar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20180719/220de7e0/attachment.html>

Hi,

we're planning a dispersed volume with at least 50 project directories. Each
of those has its own quota ranging between 0.1TB and 200TB. Comparing XFS
project quotas over several servers and bricks to make sure their total matches
the desired value doesn't really sound practical. It would probably be
possible to create and maintain 50 volumes and more, but it doesn't seem to
be a desirable solution. The quotas aren't fixed and resizing a volume is
not as trivial as changing the quota.?

Quota was in the past and still is a very comfortable way to solve this.

But what is the new recommended way for such a setting when the quota is going
to be deprecated?

Kind regards

Gudrun
Am Donnerstag, den 19.07.2018, 12:26 +0530 schrieb Amar
Tumballi:
> Hi all,
> 
> Over last 12 years of Gluster, we have developed many features, and
continue to support most of it till now. But along the way, we have figured out
> better methods of doing things. Also we are not actively maintaining some
of these features.
> 
> We are now thinking of cleaning up some of these ?unsupported? features,
and mark them as ?SunSet? (i.e., would be totally taken out of codebase in
> following releases) in next upcoming release, v5.0. The release notes will
provide options for smoothly migrating to the supported configurations.
> 
> If you are using any of these features, do let us know, so that we can help
you with ?migration?.. Also, we are happy to guide new developers to
> work on those components which are not actively being maintained by current
set of developers.
> 
> List of features hitting sunset:
> 
> ?cluster/stripe? translator:
> 
> This translator was developed very early in the evolution of GlusterFS, and
addressed one of the very common question of Distributed FS, which is
> ?What happens if one of my file is bigger than the available brick. Say, I
have 2 TB hard drive, exported in glusterfs, my file is 3 TB?. While it
> solved the purpose, it was very hard to handle failure scenarios, and give
a real good experience to our users with this feature. Over the time,
> Gluster solved the problem with it?s ?Shard? feature, which solves the
problem in much better way, and provides much better solution with existing
> well supported stack. Hence the proposal for Deprecation.
> 
> If you are using this feature, then do write to us, as it needs a proper
migration from existing volume to a new full supported volume type before
> you upgrade.
> 
> ?storage/bd? translator:
> 
> This feature got into the code base 5 years back with this patch[1]. Plan
was to use a block device directly as a brick, which would help to handle
> disk-image storage much easily in glusterfs.
> 
> As the feature is not getting more contribution, and we are not seeing any
user traction on this, would like to propose for Deprecation.
> 
> If you are using the feature, plan to move to a supported gluster volume
configuration, and have your setup ?supported? before upgrading to your new
> gluster version.
> 
> ?RDMA? transport support:
> 
> Gluster started supporting RDMA while ib-verbs was still new, and very
high-end infra around that time were using Infiniband. Engineers did work
> with Mellanox, and got the technology into GlusterFS for better data
migration, data copy. While current day kernels support very good speed with
> IPoIB module itself, and there are no more bandwidth for experts in these
area to maintain the feature, we recommend migrating over to TCP (IP
> based) network for your volume.
> 
> If you are successfully using RDMA transport, do get in touch with us to
prioritize the migration plan for your volume. Plan is to work on this
> after the release, so by version 6.0, we will have a cleaner transport
code, which just needs to support one type.
> 
> ?Tiering? feature
> 
> Gluster?s tiering feature which was planned to be providing an option to
keep your ?hot? data in different location than your cold data, so one can
> get better performance. While we saw some users for the feature, it needs
much more attention to be completely bug free. At the time, we are not
> having any active maintainers for the feature, and hence suggesting to take
it out of the ?supported? tag.
> 
> If you are willing to take it up, and maintain it, do let us know, and we
are happy to assist you.
> 
> If you are already using tiering feature, before upgrading, make sure to do
gluster volume tier detach all the bricks before upgrading to next
> release. Also, we recommend you to use features like dmcache on your LVM
setup to get best performance from bricks.
> 
> ?Quota?
> 
> This is a call out for ?Quota? feature, to let you all know that it will be
?no new development? state. While this feature is ?actively? in use by
> many people, the challenges we have in accounting mechanisms involved, has
made it hard to achieve good performance with the feature. Also, the
> amount of extended attribute get/set operations while using the feature is
not very ideal. Hence we recommend our users to move towards setting
> quota on backend bricks directly (ie, XFS project quota), or to use
different volumes for different directories etc.
> 
> As the feature wouldn?t be deprecated immediately, the feature doesn?t need
a migration plan when you upgrade to newer version, but if you are a new
> user, we wouldn?t recommend setting quota feature. By the release dates, we
will be publishing our best alternatives guide for gluster?s current
> quota feature.
> 
> Note that if you want to contribute to the feature, we have project quota
based issue open[2] Happy to get contributions, and help in getting a
> newer approach to Quota.
> 
> 
> These are our set of initial features which we propose to take out of
?fully? supported features. While we are in the process of making the
> user/developer experience of the project much better with providing well
maintained codebase, we may come up with few more set of features which we
> may possibly consider to move out of support, and hence keep watching this
space.
> 
> [1] - http://review.gluster.org/4809
> 
> [2] - https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vijay, Shyam, Amar
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20180723/5ba9d5f6/attachment.bin>

Hi,

Looking into something else I fell over this proposal. Being a shop that
are going into "Leaving GlusterFS" mode, I thought I would give my two
cents.

While being partially an HPC shop with a few Lustre filesystems,? we
chose GlusterFS for an archiving solution (2-3 PB), because we could
find files in the underlying ZFS filesystems if GlusterFS went sour.

We have used the access to the underlying files plenty, because of the
continuous instability of GlusterFS'. Meanwhile, Lustre have been almost
effortless to run and mainly for that reason we are planning to move
away from GlusterFS.

Reading this proposal kind of underlined that "Leaving GluserFS" is
the
right thing to do. While I never understood why GlusterFS has been in
feature crazy mode instead of stabilizing mode, taking away crucial
features I don't get. With RoCE, RDMA is getting mainstream. Quotas are
very useful, even though the current implementation are not perfect.
Tiering also makes so much sense, but, for large files, not on a
per-file level.

To be honest we only use quotas. We got scared of trying out new
performance features that potentially would open up a new back of issues.

Sorry for being such a buzzkill. I really wanted it to be different.

Cheers,
Hans Henrik

On 19/07/2018 08.56, Amar Tumballi wrote:
> *
>
> Hi all,
>
> Over last 12 years of Gluster, we have developed many features, and
> continue to support most of it till now. But along the way, we have
> figured out better methods of doing things. Also we are not actively
> maintaining some of these features.
>
> We are now thinking of cleaning up some of these ?unsupported?
> features, and mark them as ?SunSet? (i.e., would be totally taken out
> of codebase in following releases) in next upcoming release, v5.0. The
> release notes will provide options for smoothly migrating to the
> supported configurations.
>
> If you are using any of these features, do let us know, so that we can
> help you with ?migration?.. Also, we are happy to guide new developers
> to work on those components which are not actively being maintained by
> current set of developers.
>
>
>       List of features hitting sunset:
>
>
>         ?cluster/stripe? translator:
>
> This translator was developed very early in the evolution of
> GlusterFS, and addressed one of the very common question of
> Distributed FS, which is ?What happens if one of my file is bigger
> than the available brick. Say, I have 2 TB hard drive, exported in
> glusterfs, my file is 3 TB?. While it solved the purpose, it was very
> hard to handle failure scenarios, and give a real good experience to
> our users with this feature. Over the time, Gluster solved the problem
> with it?s ?Shard? feature, which solves the problem in much better
> way, and provides much better solution with existing well supported
> stack. Hence the proposal for Deprecation.
>
> If you are using this feature, then do write to us, as it needs a
> proper migration from existing volume to a new full supported volume
> type before you upgrade.
>
>
>         ?storage/bd? translator:
>
> This feature got into the code base 5 years back with this patch
> <http://review.gluster.org/4809>[1]. Plan was to use a block device
> directly as a brick, which would help to handle disk-image storage
> much easily in glusterfs.
>
> As the feature is not getting more contribution, and we are not seeing
> any user traction on this, would like to propose for Deprecation.
>
> If you are using the feature, plan to move to a supported gluster
> volume configuration, and have your setup ?supported? before upgrading
> to your new gluster version.
>
>
>         ?RDMA? transport support:
>
> Gluster started supporting RDMA while ib-verbs was still new, and very
> high-end infra around that time were using Infiniband. Engineers did
> work with Mellanox, and got the technology into GlusterFS for better
> data migration, data copy. While current day kernels support very good
> speed with IPoIB module itself, and there are no more bandwidth for
> experts in these area to maintain the feature, we recommend migrating
> over to TCP (IP based) network for your volume.
>
> If you are successfully using RDMA transport, do get in touch with us
> to prioritize the migration plan for your volume. Plan is to work on
> this after the release, so by version 6.0, we will have a cleaner
> transport code, which just needs to support one type.
>
>
>         ?Tiering? feature
>
> Gluster?s tiering feature which was planned to be providing an option
> to keep your ?hot? data in different location than your cold data, so
> one can get better performance. While we saw some users for the
> feature, it needs much more attention to be completely bug free. At
> the time, we are not having any active maintainers for the feature,
> and hence suggesting to take it out of the ?supported? tag.
>
> If you are willing to take it up, and maintain it, do let us know, and
> we are happy to assist you.
>
> If you are already using tiering feature, before upgrading, make sure
> to do gluster volume tier detachall the bricks before upgrading to
> next release. Also, we recommend you to use features like dmcacheon
> your LVM setup to get best performance from bricks.
>
>
>         ?Quota?
>
> This is a call out for ?Quota? feature, to let you all know that it
> will be ?no new development? state. While this feature is ?actively?
> in use by many people, the challenges we have in accounting mechanisms
> involved, has made it hard to achieve good performance with the
> feature. Also, the amount of extended attribute get/set operations
> while using the feature is not very ideal. Hence we recommend our
> users to move towards setting quota on backend bricks directly (ie,
> XFS project quota), or to use different volumes for different
> directories etc.
>
> As the feature wouldn?t be deprecated immediately, the feature doesn?t
> need a migration plan when you upgrade to newer version, but if you
> are a new user, we wouldn?t recommend setting quota feature. By the
> release dates, we will be publishing our best alternatives guide for
> gluster?s current quota feature.
>
> Note that if you want to contribute to the feature, we have project
> quota based issue open
> <https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184>[2] Happy to get
> contributions, and help in getting a newer approach to Quota.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> These are our set of initial features which we propose to take out of
> ?fully? supported features. While we are in the process of making the
> user/developer experience of the project much better with providing
> well maintained codebase, we may come up with few more set of features
> which we may possibly consider to move out of support, and hence keep
> watching this space.
>
> [1] - http://review.gluster.org/4809
>
> [2] - https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/184
>
> Regards,
>
> Vijay, Shyam, Amar
>
> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20190319/a10e12ad/attachment.html>