Re: [Gluster-devel] FDL and Reconciliation Overview and Walkthrough

[Niels de Vos]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 09:25:30PM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Jeff gave us an overview and walkthrough of FDL and Reconciliation. The
> presentation can be viewed in the link below:
> 
> https://bluejeans.com/s/B8_U3/

Thanks for sharing!

It would be great if we can have videos like this on the gluster.org
site somewhere. Is there a page where this can be linked on? Do we have
webspace somewhere where we can upload this video and others?

I'm happy to file a GitHub issue or report it in Bugzilla. Let me know
where you want it :-)

Niels


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] What is the answer to the 3.9.1 release question?

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

I am fine with it. Thanks Kaleb!!

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY 
wrote:

> On 01/06/2017 06:42 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Kaleb Keithley  > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Nothing?
> >
> >
> > The reason I asked for 2 maintainers for the release is so that there
> > will be load distribution. But unfortunately the pairing was bad, both
> > of us are impacted by the same work which is leading to not enough time
> > for upstream release maintenance. Last time I was loaded a bit less so
> > took care of most of the things at the end with help from Amye and
> > Vijay. But this time I am swamped with work too. Please suggest how we
> > can get the release out.
> >
> > May be Aravinda can add if he is a bit free to do this.
>
> I'd certainly be willing to step in and help. I don't have time either
> to do an extensive round of testing.
>
> I'm not convinced that an STM release update needs huge amounts of
> testing either. (But feel free to disagree with me. ;-))
>
> If you and Aravinda are okay with it, I'll do some minimal testing, tag,
> and release.
>
> Just so we can get _something_ out!?!  What do you think?
>
> --
>
> Kaleb
>



-- 
Pranith
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] What is the answer to the 3.9.1 release question?

[Kaleb S. KEITHLEY]

On 01/06/2017 06:42 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Kaleb Keithley  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Nothing?
> 
> 
> The reason I asked for 2 maintainers for the release is so that there
> will be load distribution. But unfortunately the pairing was bad, both
> of us are impacted by the same work which is leading to not enough time
> for upstream release maintenance. Last time I was loaded a bit less so
> took care of most of the things at the end with help from Amye and
> Vijay. But this time I am swamped with work too. Please suggest how we
> can get the release out.
> 
> May be Aravinda can add if he is a bit free to do this.

I'd certainly be willing to step in and help. I don't have time either
to do an extensive round of testing.

I'm not convinced that an STM release update needs huge amounts of
testing either. (But feel free to disagree with me. ;-))

If you and Aravinda are okay with it, I'll do some minimal testing, tag,
and release.

Just so we can get _something_ out!?!  What do you think?

-- 

Kaleb
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Requesting patch to be considered for 3.10 release

[Atin Mukherjee]

This would definitely be a great addition looking at the past  user
requests and bugs. I already have acked the patch and awaiting Pranith's
review.

@Samikshan - Can we file a github issue for the same (with a spec) and then
if it's approved we can put it in release-3.10 lane?



On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Samikshan Bairagya 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> This patch, http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16303/ adds details on maximum
> supported op-version for clients to the volume status  output.
> This might be a useful change to have as part of the upcoming 3.10 release
> and I would like to request the respective maintainers to consider the
> same. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409078 is the
> corresponding BZ for this change.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Samikshan
> ___
> maintainers mailing list
> maintain...@gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>



-- 

~ Atin (atinm)
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] What is the answer to the 3.9.1 release question?

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Kaleb Keithley  wrote:

>
> Nothing?
>
>
The reason I asked for 2 maintainers for the release is so that there will
be load distribution. But unfortunately the pairing was bad, both of us are
impacted by the same work which is leading to not enough time for upstream
release maintenance. Last time I was loaded a bit less so took care of most
of the things at the end with help from Amye and Vijay. But this time I am
swamped with work too. Please suggest how we can get the release out.

May be Aravinda can add if he is a bit free to do this.


>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" 
> >
> >
> > There was considerable discussion in the community meeting yesterday.
> >
> > If we're not going to get one (any time soon) I'm contemplating a
> > 3.9.0-n+1 update in Fedora, Ubuntu Launchpad PPA, etc., that would
> > consist of 3.9.0 plus all the commits to the release-3.9 branch to date.
> >
> > Obviously I'd rather have an official 3.9.1 release by the maintainers.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Kaleb
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Gluster-devel mailing list
> > Gluster-devel@gluster.org
> > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> >
>



-- 
Pranith
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] What is the answer to the 3.9.1 release question?

[Kaleb Keithley]

Nothing?


- Original Message -
> From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" 
> 
> 
> There was considerable discussion in the community meeting yesterday.
> 
> If we're not going to get one (any time soon) I'm contemplating a
> 3.9.0-n+1 update in Fedora, Ubuntu Launchpad PPA, etc., that would
> consist of 3.9.0 plus all the commits to the release-3.9 branch to date.
> 
> Obviously I'd rather have an official 3.9.1 release by the maintainers.
> 
> --
> 
> Kaleb
> 
> 
> ___
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> 
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

[Gluster-devel] Requesting patch to be considered for 3.10 release

[Samikshan Bairagya]

Hi all,


This patch, http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16303/ adds details on maximum 
supported op-version for clients to the volume status  
output. This might be a useful change to have as part of the upcoming 
3.10 release and I would like to request the respective maintainers to 
consider the same. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409078 
is the corresponding BZ for this change.


Thanks and Regards,

Samikshan
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 3.10 feature proposal:: Statedump for libgfapi

[Niels de Vos]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:26:19PM -0500, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Niels de Vos  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:28:43AM +0530, Rajesh Joseph wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Shyam  wrote:
> > > > On 12/12/2016 12:26 AM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 06:20:22PM +0530, Rajesh Joseph wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Gluster should have some provision to take statedump of gfapi
> > > >>> applications.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169302
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> A part of this feature should be to find out how applications that use
> > > >> libgfapi expect to trigger debugging like this. Doing a statedump from
> > > >> the gluster-cli should not be the main/only option. I agree that it
> > > >> helps developers that work on Gluster, but we can not expect users to
> > > >> trigger statedumps like that.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think there would be a huge benefit in having an option to
> > communicate
> > > >> with libgfapi through some minimal form of local IPC. It will allow
> > > >> doing statedumps, and maybe even set/get configuration options for
> > > >> applications that do not offer these in their usage (yet).
> > > >>
> > > >> The communication should be as simple and stable as possible. This
> > could
> > > >> be the only working interface towards getting something done inside
> > > >> gfapi (worst case scenario). There is no need to have this a full
> > > >> featured interface, possibly a named pipe (fifo) where libgfapi is the
> > > >> reader is sufficient. A simple (text) command written to it can create
> > > >> statedumps and eventually other files on request.
> > > >>
> > > >> Enabling/disabling or even selecting the possibilities for debugging
> > > >> could be confiured through new functions in libgfapi, and even
> > > >> environment variables.
> > > >>
> > > >> What do others think? Would this be useful?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Would this be useful, yes.
> > > >
> > > > Would this work in cases like a container deployment, where such
> > debugging
> > > > maybe sought at scale, maybe not. I prefer options here, and also the
> > > > ability to drive this from the storage admin perspective, i.e the
> > > > server/brick end of things, identifying the client/connection against
> > which
> > > > we need the statedump and get that information over.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We were thinking something on the same line. Where statedumps can be
> > > initiated by
> > > glusterd by an admin. The option mentioned by Niels is also helpful
> > > but that means
> > > we should either provide some tool or the application has to do some
> > > amount of changes
> > > to make use of this feature.
> > >
> > > > I guess the answer here is, this should not be the only option, but we
> > > > can/should have other options as you describe above.
> >
> > I have not found a feature page for this, is there one?
> >
> > Because we would really like this in 3.10 to allow applications to
> > integrate better with Gluster, I propose to split the functionality over
> > several changes:
> >
> > 1. ground work and API exposed for applications (and testing)
> > 2. enablement through a simple interface, similar to /proc/sysrq-trigger
> > 3. enablement through gluster-cli command
> >
> > These options should be explained in the feature page, with the plan to
> > provide the three options for 3.10. I'm happy to massage the patch from
> > Poornima [0] and split it in 1 and 3. Additional improvements for 3
> > might be needed, and we'll have to see who does that work. Point 2 is
> > something I'll take on as well.
> >
> > What do others think about this?
> >
> >
> Sounds good to me. What are the additional improvements that you envision
> for 3?

I dont remember anymore and will look into this further next week.

Niels


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel