> On 30 May 2017, at 19:58, Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowd...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Zhang Huan" <zhangh...@open-fs.com <mailto:zhangh...@open-fs.com>> >> To: "Raghavendra G" <raghaven...@gluster.com >> <mailto:raghaven...@gluster.com>> >> Cc: "GlusterFS Maintainers" <maintain...@gluster.org >> <mailto:maintain...@gluster.org>>, "Gluster Devel" >> <gluster-devel@gluster.org <mailto:gluster-devel@gluster.org>>, "Kaushal >> Madappa" >> <kmada...@redhat.com <mailto:kmada...@redhat.com>> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 3:33:09 PM >> Subject: Re: [Gluster-Maintainers] [Gluster-devel] Backport for "Add back >> socket for polling of events >> immediately..." >> >> >> >> >> On 29 May 2017, at 11:16, Raghavendra G < raghaven...@gluster.com > wrote: >> >> Replying to all queries here: >> >> * Is it a bug or performance enhancement? >> Its a performance enhancement. No functionality is broken if this patch is >> not taken in. >> >> * Are there performance numbers to validate the claim? >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606#c9 >> >> * Are there any existing users who need this enhancement? >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606#c27 >> >> Though not sure what branch Zhang Huan is on. @Zhang your inputs are needed >> here. >> >> We are currently on 3.8. Thus the performance number is based on 3.8. >> If you need more details, please let me know. > > Thanks Zhang. The question was more on the lines whether you need backport of > the fix to 3.8.
Actually, we really need this backported to 3.8. I have seen the backport of it to 3.8. https://review.gluster.org/#/c/15046/ <https://review.gluster.org/#/c/15046/> Once it gets merged, we will rebase to it and test it as a whole. > Can you upgrade to recent releases (say 3.11.x or 3.10.x)? Sorry, I am afraid not. Gusterfs is one of the key components in our product. An upgrade alone would break the whole thing. > >> >> >> >> >> >> * Do I think this patch _should_ go into any of the released branches? >> Personally, I don't feel strongly either way. I am fine with this patch not >> making into any of released branches. But, I do think there are users who >> are affected with this (Especially EC/Disperse configurations). If they want >> to stick to the released branches, pulling into released branches will help >> them. @Pranith/Xavi, what are your opinions on this? >> >> regards, >> Raghavendra >> >> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Shyam < srang...@redhat.com > wrote: >> >> >> On 05/28/2017 09:24 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Niels de Vos < nde...@redhat.com >> <mailto: nde...@redhat.com >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:25:42PM -0400, Shyam wrote: >>> Or this one: https://review.gluster.org/15036 < >>> https://review.gluster.org/15036 > >>> >>> This is backported to 3.8/10 and 3.11 and considering the size and impact >>> of >>> the change, I wanted to be sure that we are going to accept this across all >>> 3 releases? >>> >>> @Du, would like your thoughts on this. >>> >>> @niels, @kaushal, @talur, as release owners, could you weigh in as well >>> please. >>> >>> I am thinking that we get this into 3.11.1 if there is agreement, and not >>> in >>> 3.11.0 as we are finalizing the release in 3 days, and this change looks >>> big, to get in at this time. >> >> >> Given 3.11 is going to be a new release, I'd recommend to get this fix >> in (if we have time). https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17402/ is dependent >> on this one. >> >> It is not a fix Atin, it is a more fundamental change to request processing, >> with 2 days to the release, you want me to merge this? >> >> Is there a *bug* that will surface without this change or is it a performance >> enhancement? >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Further the change is actually an enhancement, and provides performance >>> benefits, so it is valid as a change itself, but I feel it is too late to >>> add to the current 3.11 release. >> >> Indeed, and mostly we do not merge enhancements that are non-trivial to >> stable branches. Each change that we backport introduces the chance on >> regressions for users with their unknown (and possibly awkward) >> workloads. >> >> The patch itself looks ok, but it is difficult to predict how the change >> affects current deployments. I prefer to be conservative and not have >> this merged in 3.8, at least for now. Are there any statistics in how >> performance is affected with this change? Having features like this only >> in newer versions might also convince users to upgrade sooner, 3.8 will >> only be supported until 3.12 (or 4.0) gets released, which is approx. 3 >> months from now according to our schedule. >> >> Niels >> >> _______________________________________________ >> maintainers mailing list >> maintain...@gluster.org <mailto: maintain...@gluster.org > >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers >> < http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@gluster.org >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> >> >> >> -- >> Raghavendra G >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> Gluster-devel@gluster.org >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> maintainers mailing list >> maintain...@gluster.org <mailto:maintain...@gluster.org> >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers >> <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers>
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
