On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:40 PM, zhucaifeng wrote:
> Hi, Yan
>
> iov_iter APIs seems unsuitable for the direct io manipulation below.
> iov_iter APIs
> hide how to iterate over elements, whileas dio_xxx below explicitly control
> over
> the iteration. They conflict
On 10/07/2015 10:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2015, David Zafman wrote:
>> There would be a benefit to doing fadvise POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED after
>> deep-scrub reads for objects not recently accessed by clients.
> Yeah, it's the 'except for stuff already in cache' part that we don't do
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sage Weil [mailto:sw...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:48 PM
> To: Deneau, Tom
> Cc: Mark Nelson; Gregory Farnum; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: perf counters from a performance discrepancy
>
> > I finally got around to looking
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Deneau, Tom wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sage Weil [mailto:sw...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:48 PM
> > To: Deneau, Tom
> > Cc: Mark Nelson; Gregory Farnum; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: RE: perf counters from a performance
Dear developers,
Recently I met some troubles when I read the Ceph’s source code and
understand the architecture.
The details of problems are as followed.
1.In monitoring tools, they can collect much data when Ceph runs. I wonder
what
kind of data the Ceph can provide (object data, PG
If I remember correctly, Nick faced similar issue and we debugged down to the
xattr access issue in the find_object_context(). I am not sure if it is
resolved though for him or not.
Thanks & Regards
Somnath
-Original Message-
From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
On 08/10/2015 22:50, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> The next hammer release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/hammer
>> passed the fs suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12701#note-66). Do you
>>
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> The next hammer release as found at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/tree/hammer
> passed the fs suite (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12701#note-66). Do you
> think the hammer branch is ready for QE to start their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Sage,
After trying to bisect this issue (all test moved the bisect towards
Infernalis) and eventually testing the Infernalis branch again, it
looks like the problem still exists although it is handled a tad
better in Infernalis. I'm going to test
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:09 AM, 蔡毅 wrote:
>
> Dear developers,
>
>Recently I met some troubles when I read the Ceph’s source code and
> understand the architecture.
> The details of problems are as followed.
>
>1.In monitoring tools, they can collect much data when
10 matches
Mail list logo