[PVE-User] What is the purpose of second gluster server in storage config?
t.lamprecht at proxmox.com
Wed May 8 10:01:54 CEST 2019
On 5/8/19 9:37 AM, Igor Podlesny wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 14:14, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht at proxmox.com> wrote:
>> On 5/8/19 8:57 AM, Igor Podlesny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 13:11, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht at proxmox.com> wrote:
>>> In short: pain, suffering and all That.
>> Yes, things are not always perfect. But instead of complaining, in a bit
>> dramatic way, maybe just open a enhancement/bug request, so that this gets
>> finally tracked and resolved or, as we're open source, you can naturally
>> also always provide a patch yourself, to get this kick started.
> (Well, if you're speaking personally to me...)
> -- I didn't open no ticket, neither did I __complain__. I just let
> others know there's a pitfall, meanwhile thoroughly describing what it
> was. That's it.
In a mail were a user ask where to open a request for this (i.e., pro-actively
trying to do something to make it better), you just wrote:
"Proxmox tells you go suffer, that's what happens"
> Also, where did you find any drama even for a bit? :) If Proxmox
> developers aren't able to start fixing it due absence of a ticket, and
> something/someone prohibits them to open such a ticket themselves --
> that's more dramatic. ;-)
There's a lot to do. GlusterFS isn't currently the most popular nor feature
full choice in software defined storage, so if a user can't even bother to
open a short Bugzilla request to ensure tracking of it happens why anybody
should bother fixing it, testing it, and releasing it for free for him?
Also, If I choose to what work on next I probably won't remember a single user
list post a month ago, but triaging in the Bugzilla gives it a bigger chance to
make it visible. No, nothing prohibits us from doing it ourself, but, if that's
to much to ask then it's probably not really a pain to you anyway and makes it
low priority automatically.
More information about the pve-user