On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:45, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 11:03 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> > Further, rolling upgrades of the server becomes a moot point, as
> > some would be a higher version in the interim and hence prevent
> > existing clients to
Thanks Vijay, Ric, and Shyam.
Just to re-iterate, our RPC layer is designed to handle multiple version of
protocols, and smoothly work with different clients. But I noticed that in
the last 4 years, it was not properly followed, and for the same version we
ended up making on wire changes, thus
On 10/12/2017 11:03 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
Further, rolling upgrades of the server becomes a moot point, as
some would be a higher version in the interim and hence prevent
existing clients to talk to the same, as our upgrade process is
servers first and then clients.
I do not
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Shyam Ranganathan
wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 04:25 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
>> I worry about having to update all of the clients when we have new code
>> on servers.
>>
>> Typically, for example with NFS, the client negotiates the protocol
>>
On 10/12/2017 04:25 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I worry about having to update all of the clients when we have new code
on servers.
Typically, for example with NFS, the client negotiates the protocol
version it understands and we default to the highest version the clients
and servers both
I worry about having to update all of the clients when we have new code on
servers.
Typically, for example with NFS, the client negotiates the protocol version
it understands and we default to the highest version the clients and
servers both support.
I know that is a pain, but we should keep in
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Amar Tumballi wrote:
> Was (Re: [Gluster-devel] Proposed Protocol changes for 4.0: Need feedback.)
>
> All,
>
> While we are at making all the below tasks' color coding to GREEN, it
> would make sense to discuss 1 main thing.
>
> With 4.0, we