On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:46:39AM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote: > Hi Niels, > > Can we have this in the next 3.8 build. Without this fix, bricks and snapd > are susceptible to be down. Thanks.
Yes, I am planning to do a 3.8.6 build last week and want to include this change. Things are rather busy for me, and I'm a little behind on schedule. Thanks, Niels > > Regards, > Avra > > On 11/15/2016 11:46 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > > Hi Niels, > > > > I don't think there is anything more to add to the release note, in > > regards to this patch (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15308/). Given that > > it is a crucial fix, I think we should take this in without further > > delay. Thanks. > > > > Regards, > > Avra > > > > On 09/19/2016 03:07 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:43:29PM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote: > > > > Problem: glusterd used to assume that the brick port which was > > > > previously > > > > allocated to a brick, would still be available, and in doing so > > > > would reuse > > > > the port for the brick without registering with the port map > > > > server. The > > > > port map server would not be aware of the brick reusing the same > > > > port, and > > > > try to allocate it to another process, and in turn result in > > > > that process' > > > > failure to connect to the port. > > > > > > > > Fix and port usage changes: With the fix, we force glusterd, to > > > > unregister a > > > > port previously used by the brick, and register a new port with > > > > the port map > > > > server and then use it. As a result of this change, there will be no > > > > conflict between processes competing over the same port, thereby > > > > fixing the > > > > issue. Also because of this change, a brick process on restart is not > > > > guaranteed to reuse the same port it used to be connected to. > > > > Client processes > > > > are unaffected by this change, as they do a portmap query before > > > > connecting to > > > > the brick processes. > > > Great, thanks! > > > > > > Niels > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/19/2016 01:25 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:10PM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote: > > > > > > On 09/07/2016 08:33 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Avra, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://review.gluster.org/15308 is one of your > > > > > > > patches, and this changes > > > > > > > the allocation of ports used. It seems to address a > > > > > > > real problem, so it > > > > > > > is acceptible to include it in 3.8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because it is a user facing change (different > > > > > > > ports), we need to mention > > > > > > > the difference in behaviour in the release notes. > > > > > > > Could you provide me > > > > > > > with a suitable text that includes the problem being > > > > > > > addressed, and how > > > > > > > the usage of ports differs from before? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Niels > > > > > > Hi Niels, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please find below the text to address the problem and > > > > > > the change in behavior > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Problem: glusterd used to assume that the brick port > > > > > > which was previously > > > > > > allocated to a brick, would still be available, and in > > > > > > doing so would reuse > > > > > > the port for the brick without registering with the port > > > > > > map server. The > > > > > > port map server would not be aware of the brick reusing > > > > > > the same port, and > > > > > > try to allocate it to another process, and in turn > > > > > > result in that process' > > > > > > failure to connect to the port. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fix and port usage changes: With the fix, we force > > > > > > glusterd, to unregister a > > > > > > port previously used by the brick, and register a new > > > > > > port with the port map > > > > > > server and then use it. As a result of this change, there will be no > > > > > > conflict between processes competing over the same port, > > > > > > thereby fixing the > > > > > > issue. Also because of this change, a brick process on restart is > > > > > > not > > > > > > guaranteed to reuse the same port it used to be connected to. > > > > > Thanks Avra, this looks good to me. Could you add a line about how > > > > > clients do not get confisde by this? > > > > > > > > > > Niels > > >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
