Re: [Gluster-devel] Gluster volume snapshot - Plugin architecture proposal
Hi Amar, On Wed, Mar 22, 2017, at 04:26 AM, Amar Tumballi wrote: > Hi Sriram, > Thanks for sharing this. Just one comment below. > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:12 AM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >> __ >> Hi Raghavendra, >> >> My name is Sriram I'd been working with Rajesh on creating a plugin >> structure for snapshot functionality. Below is the document which >> Rajesh'd created and I've edited the same with ideas and problems. >> Could you have a look and review so that we could take it forward? >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dHij_oy8V8CF2I7WfdYqKXFTGw0SKGzGlngDBpSwSGc/edit?usp=sharing >> > > I am not sure if any 'code' has been written already for this. If not, > great, because we want any improvements in 'glusterd' space to come > through approval of new GlusterD[1] design phase, so we can move away > with the current glusterd. > But, looking at the design, the plugin can be pretty much be > independent of the glusterd architecture, even then better to run it > through everyone involved first. There was a series of patches which I'd sent initially but, then Rajesh and Avra proposed that we revisit the design once. So we'd stopped writing any code. https://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/ This was the series I'd posted. I'm not really sure who'd be helping on this activity to get them involved in the mail loop. I'll have a look at the GlusterD design phase approval wiki. Let me know as how we proceed on this. Sriram > > If already significant effort has been made here, then we are fine > with continuing the effort to take these to completion. > > Regards, > Amar > >> >> Sriram >> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>> Hi Sriram, >>>> I already took a look at the document and added some minor >>>> comments. As you are aware Raghavendra Bhatt is the new maintainer >>>> so he will be more involved in this. I may not be able to spend as >>>> much time as I would like. But I will try to help as much as >>>> possible. >>>> Regards, >>>> Rajesh >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:41 AM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>> __ >>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>> >>>>> You'd a look at the document? Would you be involved in this >>>>> activity, going forward? >>>>> >>>>> Sriram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017, at 05:49 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. I've replied on this mail and added gluster-devel. Let >>>>>> me know your thoughts and if you could share the same idea with >>>>>> Raghavendra Bhat who is the new maintainer it'd be great for me >>>>>> to take this forward with him. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sriram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017, at 07:48 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>>>> Sorry could not look into this as I was busy. Also I am leaving >>>>>>> Red Hat so may not be able to spend much time on this. I think >>>>>>> it would be great if you include gluster-devel in this >>>>>>> discussion. Meanwhile I will try to review the doc in a day or >>>>>>> two. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>>> Rajesh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:27 AM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could you have a look at the below doc and let me know about >>>>>>>> it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017, at 12:44 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could you have a look at the below link and let me know your >>>>>>>>> comments? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>>>> >>
Re: [Gluster-devel] Gluster volume snapshot - Plugin architecture proposal
Hi Raghavendra, My name is Sriram I'd been working with Rajesh on creating a plugin structure for snapshot functionality. Below is the document which Rajesh'd created and I've edited the same with ideas and problems. Could you have a look and review so that we could take it forward? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dHij_oy8V8CF2I7WfdYqKXFTGw0SKGzGlngDBpSwSGc/edit?usp=sharing Sriram > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >> Hi Sriram, >> I already took a look at the document and added some minor comments. >> As you are aware Raghavendra Bhatt is the new maintainer so he will >> be more involved in this. I may not be able to spend as much time as >> I would like. But I will try to help as much as possible. >> Regards, >> Rajesh >> >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:41 AM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>> __ >>> Hi Rajesh, >>> >>> You'd a look at the document? Would you be involved in this >>> activity, going forward? >>> >>> Sriram >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017, at 05:49 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>> >>>> Thank you. I've replied on this mail and added gluster-devel. Let >>>> me know your thoughts and if you could share the same idea with >>>> Raghavendra Bhat who is the new maintainer it'd be great for me to >>>> take this forward with him. >>>> >>>> Sriram >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017, at 07:48 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>> Sorry could not look into this as I was busy. Also I am leaving >>>>> Red Hat so may not be able to spend much time on this. I think it >>>>> would be great if you include gluster-devel in this discussion. >>>>> Meanwhile I will try to review the doc in a day or two. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>> Rajesh >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:27 AM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>>> __ >>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you have a look at the below doc and let me know about it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sriram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017, at 12:44 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could you have a look at the below link and let me know your >>>>>>> comments? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017, at 11:31 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Rajesh/Avra, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dHij_oy8V8CF2I7WfdYqKXFTGw0SKGzGlngDBpSwSGc/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've updated the doc with details on how we could design. Sorry >>>>>>>> about the delay, was held up at work. Could you have a look at >>>>>>>> let me know the comments? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>>>>>>> Done. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:08 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Was able to check-in last week without a logon, but now >>>>>>>>>> unable to. Could you permit "sriram@gmail.com" this is my >>>>>>>>>> gmail account to use the doc shared? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017, at 03:42 PM, Rajesh Joseph (via Google >>>>>>>>>> Docs) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rajesh Joseph[1] has invited you to *edit* the fo
Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)
Hi Avra, Thank you. Sriram On Thu, Jan 12, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > Works fine for us Sriram. Friday 2-3 pm. > > Regards, > Avra > > On 01/12/2017 11:54 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> Sorry for the late reply, could we have the meeting tomorrow? 2-3 pm? >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> We can have a discussion tomorrow i.e 12th January from 3pm to 4 pm. >>> Does that time work for you? >>> >>> Meeting Link : https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/ >>> >>> Regards, >>> Avra >>> >>> On 01/10/2017 09:35 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>> Hello Rajesh, Avra, >>>> >>>> Could we have a discussion on the below? This week sometime? >>>> >>>> Sriram >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 04:56 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>>> Sure, will setup it from next week onward. >>>>> -Rajesh >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide. >>>>>> I'll continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for >>>>>> review. We'll take it from there, is that ok with you? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sriram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the below request ok with you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Avra/Rajesh, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be >>>>>>>>> working on the change we'd initiated sometime back for >>>>>>>>> pluggable FS specific snapshot implementation. We'd be moving >>>>>>>>> our gluster deployements to "master" (stable) once this >>>>>>>>> feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled >>>>>>>>> release next year, I'd be happy if some of the work done here >>>>>>>>> is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, >>>>>>>>> could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>>>> I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail. >>>>>>> I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take >>>>>>> this to conclusion. >>>>>>> Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine? >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> Rajesh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> more details »[1] >>>>>>>>>> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot >>>>>>>>>> support into the mainline glusterfs >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>>>>>>> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss >>>>>>>>>> snapshot plugabbility. Thanks >>>>>>>>>> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2] >>>>>>>>>> Regards, Avra >>>>>>>>>> On 12/19
Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)
Hi Avra, Sorry for the late reply, could we have the meeting tomorrow? 2-3 pm? Sriram On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > Hi, > > We can have a discussion tomorrow i.e 12th January from 3pm to 4 pm. > Does that time work for you? > > Meeting Link : https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[1] > > Regards, > Avra > > On 01/10/2017 09:35 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hello Rajesh, Avra, >> >> Could we have a discussion on the below? This week sometime? >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 04:56 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>> Sure, will setup it from next week onward. >>> -Rajesh >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>> >>>> Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide. >>>> I'll continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for >>>> review. We'll take it from there, is that ok with you? >>>> >>>> Sriram >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the below request ok with you? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sriram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Avra/Rajesh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working >>>>>>> on the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS >>>>>>> specific snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster >>>>>>> deployements to "master" (stable) once this feature goes in. >>>>>>> Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled release next year, I'd >>>>>>> be happy if some of the work done here is re-usable to >>>>>>> glusterd2.0 as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, >>>>>>> could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature? >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>> I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail. >>>>> I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take >>>>> this to conclusion. >>>>> Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine? >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Rajesh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> more details »[2] >>>>>>>> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support >>>>>>>> into the mainline glusterfs >>>>>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>>>>> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss >>>>>>>> snapshot plugabbility. Thanks >>>>>>>> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[3] >>>>>>>> Regards, Avra >>>>>>>> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > Hi Avra, >>>>>>>> > > Could you help on the below request? May I abandon the >>>>>>>> previous submitted patches, and could we consider the latest >>>>>>>> one? > > Sriram > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, >>>>>>>> sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> Thanks for the >>>>>>>> reply, >> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch >>>>>>>> set sent would'nt compile individually. So, I merged the >>>>>>>> changes into a single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok >>>>>>>> to drop all the previous posted patches and consider from the >>>>>>>> new one? Please suggest. >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, >>&
Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)
Hello Rajesh, Avra, Could we have a discussion on the below? This week sometime? Sriram On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 04:56 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: > Sure, will setup it from next week onward. > -Rajesh > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >> __ >> Hi Rajesh, >> >> Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide. I'll >> continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for review. >> We'll take it from there, is that ok with you? >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>> __ >>>> Hi Avra, >>>> >>>> Is the below request ok with you? >>>> >>>> Sriram >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>> Hi Avra/Rajesh, >>>>> >>>>> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working >>>>> on the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS >>>>> specific snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster >>>>> deployements to "master" (stable) once this feature goes in. >>>>> Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled release next year, I'd be >>>>> happy if some of the work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as >>>>> well. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, >>>>> could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature? >>> >>> Hi Sriram, >>> I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail. >>> I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take this >>> to conclusion. >>> Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine? >>> Best Regards, >>> Rajesh >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sriram >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> more details »[1] >>>>>> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into >>>>>> the mainline glusterfs >>>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>>> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss >>>>>> snapshot plugabbility. Thanks >>>>>> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2] >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Avra >>>>>> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> > Hi Avra, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Could you help on the below request? May I abandon the >>>>>> > previous submitted patches, and could we consider the latest >>>>>> > one? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Sriram >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> >> Hi Avra, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Thanks for the reply, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent >>>>>> >> would'nt compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a >>>>>> >> single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all >>>>>> >> the previous posted patches and consider from the new one? >>>>>> >> Please suggest. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Sriram >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>>>> >>> Hi Sriram, >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems >>>>>> >>> this new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone >>>>>> >>> some previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top >>>>>> >>> of the previous patchset >>>>>> >>> (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3]) instead of >>>>>> >>> creating a new one. This will allow you to view the
Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)
Hi Rajesh, Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide. I'll continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for review. We'll take it from there, is that ok with you? Sriram On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >> __ >> Hi Avra, >> >> Is the below request ok with you? >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>> Hi Avra/Rajesh, >>> >>> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on >>> the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific >>> snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster deployements to >>> "master" (stable) once this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 >>> release is scheduled release next year, I'd be happy if some of the >>> work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well. >>> >>> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, could >>> we've a weekly meeting for the same feature? > > Hi Sriram, > I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail. > I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take this > to conclusion. > Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine? > Best Regards, > Rajesh > > >>> >>> >>> Sriram >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> more details »[1] >>>> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into >>>> the mainline glusterfs >>>> Hi Sriram, >>>> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss snapshot >>>> plugabbility. Thanks >>>> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2] >>>> Regards, >>>> Avra >>>> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>> > Hi Avra, >>>> > >>>> > Could you help on the below request? May I abandon the previous >>>> > submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one? >>>> > >>>> > Sriram >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>> >> Hi Avra, >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks for the reply, >>>> >> >>>> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent >>>> >> would'nt compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a >>>> >> single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the >>>> >> previous posted patches and consider from the new one? Please >>>> >> suggest. >>>> >> >>>> >> Sriram >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>> >>> Hi Sriram, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems >>>> >>> this new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone >>>> >>> some previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of >>>> >>> the previous patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3]) >>>> >>> instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the >>>> >>> diff between the new version and the previous version, and will >>>> >>> give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the >>>> >>> patch or got added as part of merge conflict. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Regards, Avra >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Avra, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I've update the patch according to the comments below. And >>>> >>>> created a single patch which does the initial modularization. >>>> >>>> Fixed the tab->space issue as well. I've raised a new review >>>> >>>> request for the same bug ID here: >>>> >>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[4] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need >>>> >>>> to do anything
Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)
Hi Avra, Is the below request ok with you? Sriram On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > Hi Avra/Rajesh, > > In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on > the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific > snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster deployements to > "master" (stable) once this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 > release is scheduled release next year, I'd be happy if some of the > work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well. > > Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, could > we've a weekly meeting for the same feature? > > Sriram > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote: >> >> >> more details »[1] >> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the >> mainline glusterfs >> Hi Sriram, >> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss snapshot >> plugabbility. Thanks >> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2] >> Regards, >> Avra >> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> > Hi Avra, >> > >> > Could you help on the below request? May I abandon the previous >> > submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one? >> > >> > Sriram >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> >> Hi Avra, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the reply, >> >> >> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt >> >> compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a single patch >> >> , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the previous posted >> >> patches and consider from the new one? Please suggest. >> >> >> >> Sriram >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >> >>> Hi Sriram, >> >>> >> >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems this >> >>> new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone some >> >>> previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of the >> >>> previous patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3]) >> >>> instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the >> >>> diff between the new version and the previous version, and will >> >>> give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the >> >>> patch or got added as part of merge conflict. >> >>> >> >>> Regards, Avra >> >>> >> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> >>>> Hi Avra, >> >>>> >> >>>> I've update the patch according to the comments below. And >> >>>> created a single patch which does the initial modularization. >> >>>> Fixed the tab->space issue as well. I've raised a new review >> >>>> request for the same bug ID here: >> >>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[4] >> >>>> >> >>>> Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to >> >>>> do anything else. >> >>>> >> >>>> Could you have a look and let me know? >> >>>> >> >>>> (Sorry for the delay in creating this) >> >>>> >> >>>> Sriram >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Sriram, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch >> >>>>> should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to >> >>>>> happen, we need to consolidate these patches(the first three) >> >>>>> into one patch, and have the necessary make file changes into >> >>>>> that patch too. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/[5] >> >>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/[6] >> >>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/[7] >> >>>>> >> >>>>> That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes >> >>>>> of having the current code moved into separate files, and it >> >>>>> should get compiled on it's own, and
Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)
Hi Avra/Rajesh, In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster deployements to "master" (stable) once this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled release next year, I'd be happy if some of the work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well. Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature? Sriram On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote: > > > more details »[1] > Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the > mainline glusterfs > Hi Sriram, > Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss snapshot > plugabbility. Thanks > Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2] > Regards, > Avra > On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > > Hi Avra, > > > > Could you help on the below request? May I abandon the previous > > submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one? > > > > Sriram > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > >> Hi Avra, > >> > >> Thanks for the reply, > >> > >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt > >> compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a single patch > >> , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the previous posted > >> patches and consider from the new one? Please suggest. > >> > >> Sriram > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > >>> Hi Sriram, > >>> > >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems this > >>> new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone some > >>> previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of the > >>> previous patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3]) > >>> instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the > >>> diff between the new version and the previous version, and will > >>> give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the > >>> patch or got added as part of merge conflict. > >>> > >>> Regards, Avra > >>> > >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > >>>> Hi Avra, > >>>> > >>>> I've update the patch according to the comments below. And > >>>> created a single patch which does the initial modularization. > >>>> Fixed the tab->space issue as well. I've raised a new review > >>>> request for the same bug ID here: > >>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[4] > >>>> > >>>> Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to > >>>> do anything else. > >>>> > >>>> Could you have a look and let me know? > >>>> > >>>> (Sorry for the delay in creating this) > >>>> > >>>> Sriram > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > >>>>> Hi Sriram, > >>>>> > >>>>> The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch > >>>>> should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to > >>>>> happen, we need to consolidate these patches(the first three) > >>>>> into one patch, and have the necessary make file changes into > >>>>> that patch too. > >>>>> > >>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/[5] > >>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/[6] > >>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/[7] > >>>>> > >>>>> That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes of > >>>>> having the current code moved into separate files, and it should > >>>>> get compiled on it's own, and should pass regression. Also, we > >>>>> use spaces, and not tabs in the code. So we will need to get > >>>>> those changed too. Thanks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, Avra > >>>>> > >>>>> On 10/12/2016 10:46 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Avra, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Could you let me know on the below request? > >>>>>>
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi Avra, Thanks for the reply, But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the previous posted patches and consider from the new one? Please suggest. Sriram On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > Hi Sriram, > > I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems this new > patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone some previous > patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of the previous patchset > (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1) instead of creating a new > one. This will allow you to view the diff between the new version and > the previous version, and will give u an idea if the diff is > something that you added in the patch or got added as part of merge > conflict. > > Regards, > Avra > > On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> I've update the patch according to the comments below. And created a >> single patch which does the initial modularization. Fixed the tab- >> >space issue as well. I've raised a new review request for the same >> bug ID here: >> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/ >> >> Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to do >> anything else. >> >> Could you have a look and let me know? >> >> (Sorry for the delay in creating this) >> >> Sriram >> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>> Hi Sriram, >>> >>> The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch >>> should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to >>> happen, we need to consolidate these patches(the first three) into >>> one patch, and have the necessary make file changes into that >>> patch too. >>> >>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/ >>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/ >>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/ >>> >>> That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes of >>> having the current code moved into separate files, and it should get >>> compiled on it's own, and should pass regression. Also, we use >>> spaces, and not tabs in the code. So we will need to get those >>> changed too. Thanks. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Avra >>> >>> On 10/12/2016 10:46 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>> Hi Avra, >>>> >>>> Could you let me know on the below request? >>>> >>>> Sriram >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 11:16 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>> >>>>> I checked the comment, the series of patches, (There are nine >>>>> patches) for which I've posted for a review below. They've all the >>>>> necessary makefiles to compile. >>>>> >>>>> Would you want me to consolidate all'em and post them as a single >>>>> patch? (I thought that would be a little confusing, since it'd >>>>> changes with different intentions). >>>>> >>>>> Sriram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 03:54 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>>> >>>>>> I posted a comment into the first patch. It doesn't compile by >>>>>> itself. We need to update the respective makefiles to be able to >>>>>> compile it. Then we can introduce the tabular structure in the >>>>>> same patch to have the framework set for the zfs snapshots. >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Avra >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/30/2016 10:24 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could you have a look into the below request? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, at 04:10 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have submitted the patches for Modularizing snapshot, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi Avra, I've update the patch according to the comments below. And created a single patch which does the initial modularization. Fixed the tab- >space issue as well. I've raised a new review request for the same bug ID here: http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/ Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to do anything else. Could you have a look and let me know? (Sorry for the delay in creating this) Sriram On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > Hi Sriram, > > The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch > should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to happen, > we need to consolidate these patches(the first three) into one patch, > and have the necessary make file changes into that patch too. > > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/ > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/ > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/ > > That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes of > having the current code moved into separate files, and it should get > compiled on it's own, and should pass regression. Also, we use > spaces, and not tabs in the code. So we will need to get those > changed too. Thanks. > > Regards, > Avra > > On 10/12/2016 10:46 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> Could you let me know on the below request? >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 11:16 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>> Hi Avra, >>> >>> I checked the comment, the series of patches, (There are nine >>> patches) for which I've posted for a review below. They've all the >>> necessary makefiles to compile. >>> >>> Would you want me to consolidate all'em and post them as a single >>> patch? (I thought that would be a little confusing, since it'd >>> changes with different intentions). >>> >>> Sriram >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 03:54 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>> Hi Sriram, >>>> >>>> I posted a comment into the first patch. It doesn't compile by >>>> itself. We need to update the respective makefiles to be able to >>>> compile it. Then we can introduce the tabular structure in the same >>>> patch to have the framework set for the zfs snapshots. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Avra >>>> >>>> On 09/30/2016 10:24 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>> >>>>> Could you have a look into the below request? >>>>> >>>>> Sriram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, at 04:10 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>>> >>>>>> Have submitted the patches for Modularizing snapshot, >>>>>> >>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437 >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the patch set: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/15554 This patch follows the >>>>>> discussion from the gluster-devel mail chain of, ... >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/1 Referring to bugID:1377437, >>>>>> Modularizing snapshot for plugin based modules. >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/15556 - This is third patch in the >>>>>> series for the bug=1377437 >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/15557 [BugId:1377437][Patch4]: >>>>>> Refering to the bug ID, >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/15558 [BugId:1377437][Patch5]: >>>>>> Refering to the bug ID, >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/15559 [BugId:1377437][Patch6]: >>>>>> Refering to the bug ID, >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/15560 [BugId:1377437][Patch7]: >>>>>> Refering to the bug ID. * This patch has some minor ... >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/15561 [BugId:1377437][Patch8]: >>>>>> Refering to the bug ID, this commit has minor fixes ... >>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/15562 [BugId:1377437][Patch9]: >>>>>> Refering to the bug ID, - Minor header file ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Primarily, focused on moving lvm based implementation into >>>>>> plugins. Have spread the commits across nine patches, some of >>>>>> them are minors, except a couple of ones which does th
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi Avra, Could you let me know on the below request? Sriram On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 11:16 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > Hi Avra, > > I checked the comment, the series of patches, (There are nine patches) > for which I've posted for a review below. They've all the necessary > makefiles to compile. > > Would you want me to consolidate all'em and post them as a single > patch? (I thought that would be a little confusing, since it'd changes > with different intentions). > > Sriram > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 03:54 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >> Hi Sriram, >> >> I posted a comment into the first patch. It doesn't compile by >> itself. We need to update the respective makefiles to be able to >> compile it. Then we can introduce the tabular structure in the same >> patch to have the framework set for the zfs snapshots. Thanks. >> >> Regards, >> Avra >> >> On 09/30/2016 10:24 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>> Hi Avra, >>> >>> Could you have a look into the below request? >>> >>> Sriram >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, at 04:10 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>> Hi Avra, >>>> >>>> Have submitted the patches for Modularizing snapshot, >>>> >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437 >>>> >>>> This is the patch set: >>>> >>>> http://review.gluster.org/15554 This patch follows the discussion >>>> from the gluster-devel mail chain of, ... >>>> http://review.gluster.org/1 Referring to bugID:1377437, >>>> Modularizing snapshot for plugin based modules. >>>> http://review.gluster.org/15556 - This is third patch in the >>>> series for the bug=1377437 >>>> http://review.gluster.org/15557 [BugId:1377437][Patch4]: Refering >>>> to the bug ID, >>>> http://review.gluster.org/15558 [BugId:1377437][Patch5]: Refering >>>> to the bug ID, >>>> http://review.gluster.org/15559 [BugId:1377437][Patch6]: Refering >>>> to the bug ID, >>>> http://review.gluster.org/15560 [BugId:1377437][Patch7]: Refering >>>> to the bug ID. * This patch has some minor ... >>>> http://review.gluster.org/15561 [BugId:1377437][Patch8]: Refering >>>> to the bug ID, this commit has minor fixes ... >>>> http://review.gluster.org/15562 [BugId:1377437][Patch9]: Refering >>>> to the bug ID, - Minor header file ... >>>> >>>> Primarily, focused on moving lvm based implementation into plugins. >>>> Have spread the commits across nine patches, some of them are >>>> minors, except a couple of ones which does the real work. Others >>>> are minors. Followed this method since, it would be easy for a >>>> review (accept/reject). Let me know if there is something off the >>>> methods followed with gluster devel. Thanks >>>> >>>> Sriram >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>> >>>>> I have created a bug for this >>>>> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437). The plan is >>>>> that for the first patch as mentioned below, let's not meddle with >>>>> the zfs code at all. What we are looking at is segregating the lvm >>>>> based code as is today, from the management infrastructure (which >>>>> is addressed in your patch), and creating a table based pluggable >>>>> infra(refer to gd_svc_cli_actors[] in xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/glusterd- >>>>> handler.c and other similar tables in gluster code base to get a >>>>> understanding of what I am conveying), which can be used to call >>>>> this code and still achieve the same results as we do today. >>>>> >>>>> Once this code is merged, we can use the same infra to start >>>>> pushing in the zfs code (rest of your current patch). Please let >>>>> me know if you have further queries regarding this. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Avra >>>>> >>>>> On 09/19/2016 07:52 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have a bug id for this changes? Or may I raise a new one? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sriram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16,
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi Avra, I checked the comment, the series of patches, (There are nine patches) for which I've posted for a review below. They've all the necessary makefiles to compile. Would you want me to consolidate all'em and post them as a single patch? (I thought that would be a little confusing, since it'd changes with different intentions). Sriram On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 03:54 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > Hi Sriram, > > I posted a comment into the first patch. It doesn't compile by > itself. We need to update the respective makefiles to be able to > compile it. Then we can introduce the tabular structure in the same > patch to have the framework set for the zfs snapshots. Thanks. > > Regards, > Avra > > On 09/30/2016 10:24 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> Could you have a look into the below request? >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016, at 04:10 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>> Hi Avra, >>> >>> Have submitted the patches for Modularizing snapshot, >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437 >>> >>> This is the patch set: >>> >>> http://review.gluster.org/15554 This patch follows the discussion >>> from the gluster-devel mail chain of, ... >>> http://review.gluster.org/1 Referring to bugID:1377437, >>> Modularizing snapshot for plugin based modules. >>> http://review.gluster.org/15556 - This is third patch in the series >>> for the bug=1377437 >>> http://review.gluster.org/15557 [BugId:1377437][Patch4]: Refering >>> to the bug ID, >>> http://review.gluster.org/15558 [BugId:1377437][Patch5]: Refering >>> to the bug ID, >>> http://review.gluster.org/15559 [BugId:1377437][Patch6]: Refering >>> to the bug ID, >>> http://review.gluster.org/15560 [BugId:1377437][Patch7]: Refering >>> to the bug ID. * This patch has some minor ... >>> http://review.gluster.org/15561 [BugId:1377437][Patch8]: Refering >>> to the bug ID, this commit has minor fixes ... >>> http://review.gluster.org/15562 [BugId:1377437][Patch9]: Refering >>> to the bug ID, - Minor header file ... >>> >>> Primarily, focused on moving lvm based implementation into plugins. >>> Have spread the commits across nine patches, some of them are >>> minors, except a couple of ones which does the real work. Others are >>> minors. Followed this method since, it would be easy for a review >>> (accept/reject). Let me know if there is something off the methods >>> followed with gluster devel. Thanks >>> >>> Sriram >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>> Hi Sriram, >>>> >>>> I have created a bug for this >>>> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437). The plan is >>>> that for the first patch as mentioned below, let's not meddle with >>>> the zfs code at all. What we are looking at is segregating the lvm >>>> based code as is today, from the management infrastructure (which >>>> is addressed in your patch), and creating a table based pluggable >>>> infra(refer to gd_svc_cli_actors[] in xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/glusterd- >>>> handler.c and other similar tables in gluster code base to get a >>>> understanding of what I am conveying), which can be used to call >>>> this code and still achieve the same results as we do today. >>>> >>>> Once this code is merged, we can use the same infra to start >>>> pushing in the zfs code (rest of your current patch). Please let me >>>> know if you have further queries regarding this. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Avra >>>> >>>> On 09/19/2016 07:52 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>> >>>>> Do you have a bug id for this changes? Or may I raise a new one? >>>>> >>>>> Sriram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 11:37 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> Thanks Avra, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll send this patch to gluster master in a while. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sriram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 03:08 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for the delay in response. I started going through the >&
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi Avra, Have submitted the patches for Modularizing snapshot, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437 This is the patch set: http://review.gluster.org/15554 This patch follows the discussion from the gluster-devel mail chain of, ... http://review.gluster.org/1 Referring to bugID:1377437, Modularizing snapshot for plugin based modules. http://review.gluster.org/15556 - This is third patch in the series for the bug=1377437 http://review.gluster.org/15557 [BugId:1377437][Patch4]: Refering to the bug ID, http://review.gluster.org/15558 [BugId:1377437][Patch5]: Refering to the bug ID, http://review.gluster.org/15559 [BugId:1377437][Patch6]: Refering to the bug ID, http://review.gluster.org/15560 [BugId:1377437][Patch7]: Refering to the bug ID. * This patch has some minor ... http://review.gluster.org/15561 [BugId:1377437][Patch8]: Refering to the bug ID, this commit has minor fixes ... http://review.gluster.org/15562 [BugId:1377437][Patch9]: Refering to the bug ID, - Minor header file ... Primarily, focused on moving lvm based implementation into plugins. Have spread the commits across nine patches, some of them are minors, except a couple of ones which does the real work. Others are minors. Followed this method since, it would be easy for a review (accept/reject). Let me know if there is something off the methods followed with gluster devel. Thanks Sriram On Mon, Sep 19, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > Hi Sriram, > > I have created a bug for this > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437). The plan is > that for the first patch as mentioned below, let's not meddle with > the zfs code at all. What we are looking at is segregating the lvm > based code as is today, from the management infrastructure (which is > addressed in your patch), and creating a table based pluggable > infra(refer to gd_svc_cli_actors[] in xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/glusterd- > handler.c and other similar tables in gluster code base to get a > understanding of what I am conveying), which can be used to call this > code and still achieve the same results as we do today. > > Once this code is merged, we can use the same infra to start pushing > in the zfs code (rest of your current patch). Please let me know if > you have further queries regarding this. Thanks. > > Regards, > Avra > > On 09/19/2016 07:52 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> Do you have a bug id for this changes? Or may I raise a new one? >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 11:37 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>> Thanks Avra, >>> >>> I'll send this patch to gluster master in a while. >>> >>> Sriram >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 03:08 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>> Hi Sriram, >>>> >>>> Sorry for the delay in response. I started going through the >>>> commits in the github repo. I finished going through the first >>>> commit, where you create a plugin structure and move code. >>>> Following is the commit link: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/sriramster/glusterfs/commit/7bf157525539541ebf0aa36a380bbedb2cae5440 >>>> >>>> FIrst of all, the overall approach of using plugins, and >>>> maintaining plugins that is used in the patch is in sync with what >>>> we had discussed. There are some gaps though, like in the zfs >>>> functions the snap brick is mounted without updating labels, and in >>>> restore you perform a zfs rollback, which significantly changes the >>>> behavior between how a lvm based snapshot and a zfs based snapshot. >>>> >>>> But before we get into these details, I would request you to kindly >>>> send this particular patch to the gluster master branch, as that is >>>> how we formally review patches, and I would say this particular >>>> patch in itself is ready for a formal review. Once we straighten >>>> out the quirks in this patch, we can significantly start moving the >>>> other dependent patches to master and reviewing them. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Avra >>>> >>>> P.S : Adding gluster-devel >>>> >>>> On 09/13/2016 01:14 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>> >>>>> You'd time to look into the below request? >>>>> >>>>> Sriram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 01:20 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> Hi Avra, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you.
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi Avra, Do you have a bug id for this changes? Or may I raise a new one? Sriram On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 11:37 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > Thanks Avra, > > I'll send this patch to gluster master in a while. > > Sriram > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 03:08 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >> Hi Sriram, >> >> Sorry for the delay in response. I started going through the >> commits in the github repo. I finished going through the first >> commit, where you create a plugin structure and move code. >> Following is the commit link: >> >> https://github.com/sriramster/glusterfs/commit/7bf157525539541ebf0aa36a380bbedb2cae5440 >> >> FIrst of all, the overall approach of using plugins, and maintaining >> plugins that is used in the patch is in sync with what we had >> discussed. There are some gaps though, like in the zfs functions the >> snap brick is mounted without updating labels, and in restore you >> perform a zfs rollback, which significantly changes the behavior >> between how a lvm based snapshot and a zfs based snapshot. >> >> But before we get into these details, I would request you to kindly >> send this particular patch to the gluster master branch, as that is >> how we formally review patches, and I would say this particular patch >> in itself is ready for a formal review. Once we straighten out the >> quirks in this patch, we can significantly start moving the other >> dependent patches to master and reviewing them. Thanks. >> >> Regards, >> Avra >> >> P.S : Adding gluster-devel >> >> On 09/13/2016 01:14 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>> Hi Avra, >>> >>> You'd time to look into the below request? >>> >>> Sriram >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 01:20 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>> Hi Avra, >>>> >>>> Thank you. Please, let me know your feedback. It would be helpful >>>> on continuing from then. >>>> >>>> Sriram >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 01:18 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>>> Hi Sriram, >>>>> >>>>> Rajesh is on a vacation, and will be available towards the end of >>>>> next week. He will be sharing his feedback once he is back. >>>>> Meanwhile I will have a look at the patch and share my feedback >>>>> with you. But it will take me some time to go through it. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Avra >>>>> >>>>> On 09/08/2016 01:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> Hello Rajesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry to bother. Could you have a look at the below request? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sriram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016, at 11:27 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>> Hello Rajesh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed mail, was on leave. Could you let me know >>>>>>> the feedback? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>>>>>> + Avra >>>>>>>> Hi Srirram, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, I was on leave therefore could not reply. >>>>>>>> Added Avra who is also working on the snapshot component for >>>>>>>> review. >>>>>>>> Will take a look at your changes today. >>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>>>> Rajesh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:22 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Rajesh, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could you've a look at the below request? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, at 01:03 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Continuing from the discussion we've had below and >>>>>>>>>> suggestions made by you, had created a plug
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Thanks Avra, I'll send this patch to gluster master in a while. Sriram On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 03:08 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: > Hi Sriram, > > Sorry for the delay in response. I started going through the > commits in the github repo. I finished going through the first > commit, where you create a plugin structure and move code. > Following is the commit link: > > https://github.com/sriramster/glusterfs/commit/7bf157525539541ebf0aa36a380bbedb2cae5440 > > FIrst of all, the overall approach of using plugins, and maintaining > plugins that is used in the patch is in sync with what we had > discussed. There are some gaps though, like in the zfs functions the > snap brick is mounted without updating labels, and in restore you > perform a zfs rollback, which significantly changes the behavior > between how a lvm based snapshot and a zfs based snapshot. > > But before we get into these details, I would request you to kindly > send this particular patch to the gluster master branch, as that is > how we formally review patches, and I would say this particular patch > in itself is ready for a formal review. Once we straighten out the > quirks in this patch, we can significantly start moving the other > dependent patches to master and reviewing them. Thanks. > > Regards, > Avra > > P.S : Adding gluster-devel > > On 09/13/2016 01:14 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> You'd time to look into the below request? >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 01:20 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>> Hi Avra, >>> >>> Thank you. Please, let me know your feedback. It would be helpful on >>> continuing from then. >>> >>> Sriram >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 01:18 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>>> Hi Sriram, >>>> >>>> Rajesh is on a vacation, and will be available towards the end of >>>> next week. He will be sharing his feedback once he is back. >>>> Meanwhile I will have a look at the patch and share my feedback >>>> with you. But it will take me some time to go through it. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Avra >>>> >>>> On 09/08/2016 01:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>> Hello Rajesh, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry to bother. Could you have a look at the below request? >>>>> >>>>> Sriram >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016, at 11:27 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>> Hello Rajesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for the delayed mail, was on leave. Could you let me know >>>>>> the feedback? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sriram >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: >>>>>>> + Avra >>>>>>> Hi Srirram, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, I was on leave therefore could not reply. >>>>>>> Added Avra who is also working on the snapshot component for >>>>>>> review. >>>>>>> Will take a look at your changes today. >>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>>> Rajesh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:22 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Rajesh, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could you've a look at the below request? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sriram >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, at 01:03 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Continuing from the discussion we've had below and suggestions >>>>>>>>> made by you, had created a plugin like structure (A generic >>>>>>>>> plugin model) and added snapshot to be the first plugin >>>>>>>>> implementation. Could you've a look if the approach is fine? >>>>>>>>> I've not raised a official review request yet. Could you give >>>>>>>>> an initial review of the model? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/sriramster/glusterfs/tree/sriram_dev >>>>>>>>> >
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi Rajesh,
I'd thought about moving the zfs specific implementation to
something like
xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/plugins/zfs-specifs-stuffs for the inital
go. Could you let me know if this works or in sync with what you'd
thought about?
Sriram
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 03:52 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> Hi Rajesh,
>
> Sure thanks.
>
> Sriram
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 03:07 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:
>> Hi Sriram,
>> The interface is not yet finalized. May be this is the right time to
>> re-ignite discussion on this.
>> I can create an etherpad which will explain the initial thoughts and
>> design ideas on the same.
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Rajesh
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:57 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote:
>>> __
>>> Hi Rajesh,
>>>
>>> Could you let us know the idea on how to go about this?
>>>
>>> Sriram
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016, at 03:18 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>>>> I believe Rajesh already has something here. May be he can post an
>>>> outline so that we can take it from there?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:52 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote:
>>>>> __
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to go through the patch and find the reason behind the
>>>>> question posted. But could'nt get any concrete details about the
>>>>> same.
>>>>>
>>>>> When going through the mail chain, there were mentions of generic
>>>>> snapshot interface. I'd be interested in doing the changes if you
>>>>> guys could fill me with some initial information. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sriram
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, at 01:59 PM, B.K.Raghuram wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Rajesh,
>>>>>> I did not want to respond to the question that you'd posed on the
>>>>>> zfs snapshot code (about the volume backend backup) as I am not
>>>>>> too familiar with the code and the person who's coded it is not
>>>>>> with us anymore. This was done in bit of a hurry so it could be
>>>>>> that it was just kept for later..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, Sriram who is cc'd on this email, has been helping us by
>>>>>> starting to look at the gluster code and has expressed an
>>>>>> interest in taking the zfs code changes on. So he can probably
>>>>>> dig out an answer to your question. Sriram, Rajesh had a question
>>>>>> on one of the zfs related patches -
>>>>>> (https://github.com/fractalio/glusterfs/commit/39a163eca338b6da146f72f380237abd4c671db2#commitcomment-18109851)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sriram is also interested in contributing to the process of
>>>>>> creating a generic snapshot interface in the gluster code which
>>>>>> you and Pranith mentioned above. If this is ok with you all,
>>>>>> could you fill him in on what your thoughts are on that and how
>>>>>> he could get started?
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> -Ram
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Rajesh Joseph
>>>>>> <rjos...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
>>>>>>> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>> Is there a plan to come up with an interface for snapshot
>>>>>>>> functionality? For example, in handling different types
>>>>>>>> of sockets in gluster all we need to do is to specify
>>>>>>>> which interface we want to use and ib,network-socket,unix-
>>>>>>>> domain sockets all implement the interface. The code
>>>>>>>> doesn't have to assume anything about underlying socket
>>>>>>>> type. Do you guys think it is a worthwhile effort to
>>>>>>>> separate out the logic of interface and the code which
>>>>>>>> uses snapshots? I see quite a few of if (strcmp ("zfs",
>>>>>>>> fstype)) code which can all be removed if we do this.
>>>>>>>> Giving btrfs snapshots in future will be a bre
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi Rajesh,
Could you let us know the idea on how to go about this?
Sriram
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016, at 03:18 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> I believe Rajesh already has something here. May be he can post an
> outline so that we can take it from there?
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:52 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote:
>> __
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried to go through the patch and find the reason behind the
>> question posted. But could'nt get any concrete details about
>> the same.
>>
>> When going through the mail chain, there were mentions of generic
>> snapshot interface. I'd be interested in doing the changes if you
>> guys could fill me with some initial information. Thanks.
>>
>> Sriram
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, at 01:59 PM, B.K.Raghuram wrote:
>>> Hi Rajesh,
>>> I did not want to respond to the question that you'd posed on the
>>> zfs snapshot code (about the volume backend backup) as I am not too
>>> familiar with the code and the person who's coded it is not with us
>>> anymore. This was done in bit of a hurry so it could be that it was
>>> just kept for later..
>>>
>>> However, Sriram who is cc'd on this email, has been helping us by
>>> starting to look at the gluster code and has expressed an interest
>>> in taking the zfs code changes on. So he can probably dig out an
>>> answer to your question. Sriram, Rajesh had a question on one of the
>>> zfs related patches -
>>> (https://github.com/fractalio/glusterfs/commit/39a163eca338b6da146f72f380237abd4c671db2#commitcomment-18109851)
>>>
>>> Sriram is also interested in contributing to the process of creating
>>> a generic snapshot interface in the gluster code which you and
>>> Pranith mentioned above. If this is ok with you all, could you fill
>>> him in on what your thoughts are on that and how he could get
>>> started?
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Ram
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Rajesh Joseph <rjos...@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
>>>> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> hi,
>>>>> Is there a plan to come up with an interface for snapshot
>>>>> functionality? For example, in handling different types of
>>>>> sockets in gluster all we need to do is to specify which
>>>>> interface we want to use and ib,network-socket,unix-domain
>>>>> sockets all implement the interface. The code doesn't have
>>>>> to assume anything about underlying socket type. Do you guys
>>>>> think it is a worthwhile effort to separate out the logic of
>>>>> interface and the code which uses snapshots? I see quite a
>>>>> few of if (strcmp ("zfs", fstype)) code which can all be
>>>>> removed if we do this. Giving btrfs snapshots in future will
>>>>> be a breeze as well, this way? All we need to do is
>>>>> implementing snapshot interface using btrfs snapshot
>>>>> commands. I am not talking about this patch per se. Just
>>>>> wanted to seek your inputs about future plans for ease of
>>>>> maintaining the feature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I said in my previous mail this is in plan and we will be doing
>>>> it. But due to other priorities this was not taken in yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Atin Mukherjee
>>>>> <amukh...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/21/2016 11:41 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:
>>>>>> > What kind of locking issues you see? If you can provide some
>>>>>> > more information I can be able to help you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's related to stale lock issues on GlusterD which are there
>>>>>> in 3.6.1 since the fixes landed in the branch post 3.6.1. I have
>>>>>> already provided the workaround/way to fix them [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2016-June/thread.html#26995
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~Atin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org
>>>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pranith
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Pranith
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs
Hi,
I tried to go through the patch and find the reason behind the question
posted. But could'nt get any concrete details about the same.
When going through the mail chain, there were mentions of generic
snapshot interface. I'd be interested in doing the changes if you guys
could fill me with some initial information. Thanks.
Sriram
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, at 01:59 PM, B.K.Raghuram wrote:
> Hi Rajesh,
> I did not want to respond to the question that you'd posed on the zfs
> snapshot code (about the volume backend backup) as I am not too
> familiar with the code and the person who's coded it is not with us
> anymore. This was done in bit of a hurry so it could be that it was
> just kept for later..
>
> However, Sriram who is cc'd on this email, has been helping us by
> starting to look at the gluster code and has expressed an interest in
> taking the zfs code changes on. So he can probably dig out an answer
> to your question. Sriram, Rajesh had a question on one of the zfs
> related patches -
> (https://github.com/fractalio/glusterfs/commit/39a163eca338b6da146f72f380237abd4c671db2#commitcomment-18109851)
>
> Sriram is also interested in contributing to the process of creating a
> generic snapshot interface in the gluster code which you and Pranith
> mentioned above. If this is ok with you all, could you fill him in on
> what your thoughts are on that and how he could get started?
> Thanks!
> -Ram
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Rajesh Joseph
> <rjos...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
>> <pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> Is there a plan to come up with an interface for snapshot
>>> functionality? For example, in handling different types of
>>> sockets in gluster all we need to do is to specify which
>>> interface we want to use and ib,network-socket,unix-domain
>>> sockets all implement the interface. The code doesn't have to
>>> assume anything about underlying socket type. Do you guys
>>> think it is a worthwhile effort to separate out the logic of
>>> interface and the code which uses snapshots? I see quite a few
>>> of if (strcmp ("zfs", fstype)) code which can all be removed
>>> if we do this. Giving btrfs snapshots in future will be a
>>> breeze as well, this way? All we need to do is implementing
>>> snapshot interface using btrfs snapshot commands. I am not
>>> talking about this patch per se. Just wanted to seek your
>>> inputs about future plans for ease of maintaining the feature.
>>
>>
>> As I said in my previous mail this is in plan and we will be doing
>> it. But due to other priorities this was not taken in yet.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Atin Mukherjee
>>> <amukh...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/21/2016 11:41 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:
>>>> > What kind of locking issues you see? If you can provide some
>>>> > more information I can be able to help you.
>>>>
>>>> That's related to stale lock issues on GlusterD which are there in
>>>> 3.6.1 since the fixes landed in the branch post 3.6.1. I have
>>>> already provided the workaround/way to fix them [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2016-June/thread.html#26995
>>>>
>>>> ~Atin
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> 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
