I am sorry that this came across this way. I did not intend to say bad things about GlusterFS but carve out where the technical differences are in the big picture.<p>Also I actually tried not to make any valuing statements. I am using the term split brain safety as technical term, ie. the P in CAP. My understanding is that GlusterFS does not have this in its system model and you and the documentation seem to support this: &quot;This prevents most cases of &quot;split brain&quot; which result from conflicting writes to different bricks.&quot;<p>Quobyte generally (and XtreemFS only for files) does quorum replication based on Paxos, where split brain is part of the system model. They are CP and hence data is not always available but is always consistent for reads if the quorum is there. Like Ceph.<p>I am sorry that I missed the progress on placement. It seems like I need to catch up on what happened after the volume types.