Bug#747649: ITP: ceph-dkms -- Ceph FS and RBD Linux kernel drivers (DKMS version)
On Sat, 10 May 2014 22:46:35 Ben Hutchings wrote: I just dislike kernel bugs being addressed by 'use this out-of-tree package instead'. Some projects with both in-tree and out-of-tree releases seem to encourage this rather than maintaining their in-tree code properly. (But I'm not saying ceph is among those; I'm not familiar enough with it to make a judgement.) I share your concerns and I think there is no such risk here. Upstream don't do standalone module development and I had to extract module(s) sources from kernel tree. As far as I'm aware all Ceph modules development is done in-tree. Just in case I commited README.source file with note not suitable for stable. If that has been committed to an official repository for ceph then I think I can cherry-pick it for sid. Please report a bug against the kernel to request this. I'll consider this but I hope that won't be necessary if upstream make sure that fix is included to point release of Linux_3.14 in a timely manner. Thank you. -- Cheers, Dmitry Smirnov. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#747649: ITP: ceph-dkms -- Ceph FS and RBD Linux kernel drivers (DKMS version)
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org,ceph-maintain...@lists.ceph.com Package name: ceph-dkms Version: 3.14+git20140429 Upstream Author: Sage Weil s...@newdream.net URL: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client License: GPL-2, LGPL-2.1 Description: Ceph FS and RBD Linux kernel drivers (DKMS version) DKMS drivers for Ceph file system and RBD devices. . This package provides DKMS kernel modules for Linux Kernel 3.14+. . Ceph is a scalable distributed storage system; RBD is a block device striped across multiple distributed objects in RADOS, a reliable, autonomic distributed object storage cluster developed as part of the Ceph distributed storage system. Packaging is committed to http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-ceph/ceph-dkms.git Shipping newer Ceph modules [libceph,ceph,rbd] in DKMS form is helpful to backport new features (like support for latest tunables) and fixes as well as to use recent ceph-client on stable Linux kernel. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#747649: ITP: ceph-dkms -- Ceph FS and RBD Linux kernel drivers (DKMS version)
On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 03:59 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org,ceph-maintain...@lists.ceph.com Package name: ceph-dkms Version: 3.14+git20140429 Upstream Author: Sage Weil s...@newdream.net URL: https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client License: GPL-2, LGPL-2.1 Description: Ceph FS and RBD Linux kernel drivers (DKMS version) DKMS drivers for Ceph file system and RBD devices. . This package provides DKMS kernel modules for Linux Kernel 3.14+. . Ceph is a scalable distributed storage system; RBD is a block device striped across multiple distributed objects in RADOS, a reliable, autonomic distributed object storage cluster developed as part of the Ceph distributed storage system. Packaging is committed to http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-ceph/ceph-dkms.git Shipping newer Ceph modules [libceph,ceph,rbd] in DKMS form is helpful to backport new features (like support for latest tunables) and fixes as well as to use recent ceph-client on stable Linux kernel. Please don't do this. If there are specific ceph features and bug fixes that should be backported, talk to the the kernel team. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Horngren's Observation: Among economists, the real world is often a special case. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#747649: ITP: ceph-dkms -- Ceph FS and RBD Linux kernel drivers (DKMS version)
On Sat, 10 May 2014 21:02:53 Ben Hutchings wrote: Please don't do this. I had to do it for troubleshooting as well as for delivering bugfix and new features support. I agree is should be temporary thing but I see no harm in it. I think I'm not the only one who might need it. For example there is upstream bug report to package modules for RHEL separately: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/6986 In any case I'm planning to target it for experimental only. I know it is not suitable for release without upstream support. Why do you think we'd be better without ceph-dkms? Would it be OK for you if I keep it in experimental (or in unstable with RC bug not suitable for release to prevent migration to testing)? If there are specific ceph features and bug fixes that should be backported, talk to the the kernel team. Thank you. It might be a good idea to let you know about problems. For instance I've been hit hard by the following bug (I/O errors on RBD device) that was just fixed by upstream (so I'll have to use my DKMS package until fix propagate to 3.14): http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8226 Patch is included to the above bug report. Trust me, I'm not doing it from boredom and it will be pity to let the effort die in vain... -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov. --- A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true. -- Demosthenes, Third Olynthiac, sct. 19 (349 BCE) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#747649: ITP: ceph-dkms -- Ceph FS and RBD Linux kernel drivers (DKMS version)
On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 07:27 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2014 21:02:53 Ben Hutchings wrote: Please don't do this. I had to do it for troubleshooting as well as for delivering bugfix and new features support. I agree is should be temporary thing but I see no harm in it. I think I'm not the only one who might need it. For example there is upstream bug report to package modules for RHEL separately: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/6986 In any case I'm planning to target it for experimental only. I know it is not suitable for release without upstream support. Why do you think we'd be better without ceph-dkms? Would it be OK for you if I keep it in experimental (or in unstable with RC bug not suitable for release to prevent migration to testing)? I think that's fine. I just dislike kernel bugs being addressed by 'use this out-of-tree package instead'. Some projects with both in-tree and out-of-tree releases seem to encourage this rather than maintaining their in-tree code properly. (But I'm not saying ceph is among those; I'm not familiar enough with it to make a judgement.) If there are specific ceph features and bug fixes that should be backported, talk to the the kernel team. Thank you. It might be a good idea to let you know about problems. For instance I've been hit hard by the following bug (I/O errors on RBD device) that was just fixed by upstream (so I'll have to use my DKMS package until fix propagate to 3.14): http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/8226 Patch is included to the above bug report. Trust me, I'm not doing it from boredom and it will be pity to let the effort die in vain... Understood. If that has been committed to an official repository for ceph then I think I can cherry-pick it for sid. Please report a bug against the kernel to request this. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Horngren's Observation: Among economists, the real world is often a special case. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
