Well, to be honest I had no idea, that bd-xlator is not maintained.
Personally I like the idea of a lvm based raw storage for the vm-images.
I'm using the bd-xlator since gluster 3.6 without any problems.
Why do you think bd-xlator is not worth any more to maintain? Where are the drawbacks in bd-xlator based storge versus a plain brick's volume file?
The only idea which just came into my mind is that bd-xlator provided content is incompatible within a dispersed volume?
Kind regards for your answers.
Thanks
The bd-xlator is not maintained, hardly tested and more of an orphan.
Can you say a bit more about why you want this change? Thanks,
Well, to be honest I had no idea, that bd-xlator is not maintained. Personally I like the idea of a lvm based raw storage for the vm-images. I'm using the bd-xlator since gluster 3.6 without any problems. Why do you think bd-xlator is not worth any more to maintain? Where are the drawbacks in bd-xlator based storge versus a plain brick's volume file? The only idea which just came into my mind is that bd-xlator provided content is incompatible within a dispersed volume? Kind regards for your answers. Thanks