On 04/04/2016 05:49 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote: > On 04/04/2016 08:15 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: >> >> >> On 04/04/2016 05:11 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:56:45AM +0530, Atin Mukherjee wrote: >>>> Hi Kaushal, >>>> >>>> We hit a regression yesterday where GlusterD fails to restart when the >>>> volume has snapshots. Refer to [1] for more details. The work around is >>>> also a bit tedious where each snapshot brick folders have to be created >>>> manually and I don't think see any other alternative workaround here. >>>> >>>> IMO, we should mention this as known issue in the release note for >>>> 3.7.10. >>> >>> This sounds serious enough to not package 3.7.10 and have users update >>> to it automatically. >>> >>> If others agree, I will not push 3.7.10 as a release for the CentOS >>> Storage SIG. >>> >>> Opinions most welcome, thanks, >> +1 > > How do we prevent such occurrences from happening in the future? If we > lose this release, we would have called out 2 releases in 2 months as > bad and that concerns me. I think what Niels is saying is just for CentOS Storage Sig, not the overall release, atleast that's what I understood from him.
Unfortunately we didn't get to hit this issue before the tagging was done. IMO, if our test suit would have had a test where glusterd is restarted post taking the snapshot this issue should have caught at the development phase itself :( > > -Vijay > _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
