Talk:Gluster
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theGluster article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
- The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- It appears that (as at 21 May 2018),GlusterFS has been merged intoGluster. There is (as noted below) another pageRed Hat Storage Server which has a merge proposal tag that is not replicated atGluster. To resolve this anomaly, I am closing this merge discussion and removing the merge tag atRed Hat Storage Server. Any other editor is welcome to start a new proposal to mergeRed Hat Storage Server as required.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)10:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)(non-admin closure)Reply
This page should be merged with (or redirect to)GlusterFS.—Precedingunsigned comment added by155.246.1.137 (talk)16:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I agree they should be merged. I realize that "Gluster Inc.", the software company, is not even the same kind of thing as "Red Hat Gluster Storage" (formerly GlusterFS), the open-source network file system project. But at the moment, the contents of the two articlesGluster andGlusterFS have so much overlap that it seems better to have one article ("Gluster") that combines all that information with a couple of paragraphs about the distinction between them.
- Perhaps later, if and when the article gets "too big" (WP:SIZE), we can split them back into those two articles -- or perhaps we will see a better way to split it up into multiple articles."big buckets first". --DavidCary (talk)04:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
- In my opinion, no merging should be performed. Gluster is a company (which became acquired by Red Hat), and GlusterFS is (one of) its product(s). It's more readable when those two are separate articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs)00:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
- I also agree they should be merged. But I think it is better to keepGlusterFS as the main article because(imo) it is more recognisable thanGluster, the software company. Also, theArchitecture section has statements that has no citations and the references at the end of the paragraphs are related to the last sentence mostly, not for the entire paragraph so the merging should have research on the citations.Ant70wiki (talk)21:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
- there is also a separate article onRed Hat Storage Server. Unlikely all three articles would qualify under an independent notability challenge, certainly with the scant sources provided so far. Maybe move all the technical details to the GlusterFS article, and then merge Gluster and Red Hat Storage Server to include the business news (in neutral tone and sources).W Nowicki (talk)23:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onGluster. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20130530203435/http://www.redhat.com/promo/storage/press-release.html tohttp://www.redhat.com/promo/storage/press-release.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)03:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Link # 18 points to a report on the Lustre file system rather than Gluster.Dan Oom (talk)22:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
About:
The name Gluster combined GNU and cluster. Despite the similarity in names, Gluster is not related to the Lustre file system and does not incorporate any Lustre code.
I find this statement somewhat confusing. Given that the two are not related (in any waywhatsoever, it seems to be saying, except for the similarity of their names), then why is it necessary to point out that theydo not share code? Since they are not at all related, what presumption would therebe that Gluster incorporates code from Lustre?