It has been a while but iirc snapview client (loaded abt dht/tier etc) had some issues when we ran tiering tests. Rafi might have more info on this - basically it was expecting to find the inode_ctx populated but it was not.
On 24 August 2017 at 10:13, Raghavendra G <[email protected]> wrote: > Note that we need to consider xlators on brick stack too. I've added > maintainers/peers of xlators on brick stack. Please explicitly ack/nack > whether this patch affects your component. > > For reference, following are the xlators loaded in brick stack > > storage/posix > features/trash > features/changetimerecorder > features/changelog > features/bitrot-stub > features/access-control > features/locks > features/worm > features/read-only > features/leases > features/upcall > performance/io-threads > features/selinux > features/marker > features/barrier > features/index > features/quota > debug/io-stats > performance/decompounder > protocol/server > > > For those not following this thread, the question we need to answer is, > "whether the xlator you are associated with works fine if a non-lookup fop > (like open, setattr, stat etc) hits it without a lookup ever being done on > that inode" > > regards, > Raghavendra > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Pranith and Ashish for your inputs. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <[email protected]> >> > To: "Ashish Pandey" <[email protected]> >> > Cc: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <[email protected]>, "Xavier Hernandez" < >> [email protected]>, "Gluster Devel" >> > <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 11:55:19 AM >> > Subject: Re: Need inputs on patch #17985 >> > >> > Raghavendra, >> > As Ashish mentioned, there aren't any known problems if upper >> xlators >> > don't send lookups in EC at the moment. >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Ashish Pandey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Raghvendra, >> > > >> > > I have provided my comment on this patch. >> > > I think EC will not have any issue with this approach. >> > > However, I would welcome comments from Xavi and Pranith too for any >> side >> > > effects which I may not be able to foresee. >> > > >> > > Ashish >> > > >> > > ------------------------------ >> > > *From: *"Raghavendra Gowdappa" <[email protected]> >> > > *To: *"Ashish Pandey" <[email protected]> >> > > *Cc: *"Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <[email protected]>, "Xavier >> Hernandez" >> > > <[email protected]>, "Gluster Devel" <[email protected]> >> > > *Sent: *Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:29:48 AM >> > > *Subject: *Need inputs on patch #17985 >> > > >> > > >> > > Hi Ashish, >> > > >> > > Following are the blockers for making a decision on whether patch [1] >> can >> > > be merged or not: >> > > * Evaluation of dentry operations (like rename etc) in dht >> > > * Whether EC works fine if a non-lookup fop (like open(dir), stat, >> chmod >> > > etc) hits EC without a single lookup performed on file/inode >> > > >> > > Can you please comment on the patch? I'll take care of dht part. >> > > >> > > [1] https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17985/ >> > > >> > > regards, >> > > Raghavendra >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Pranith >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> >> -- >> Raghavendra G >> >> <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
