Cool
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > Just went through the commit message. I think similar to attaching if we
> also
> > have detaching, then we can simulate killing of bricks in afr using this
> > approach may be?
>
> Yes, that's pretty much the plan.
> Just went through the commit message. I think similar to attaching if we also
> have detaching, then we can simulate killing of bricks in afr using this
> approach may be?
Yes, that's pretty much the plan. Some work to add the new RPC and handler,
a bit more to make the test libraries use it
Just went through the commit message. I think similar to attaching if we
also have detaching, then we can simulate killing of bricks in afr using
this approach may be? Even remove brick can do the same I guess.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> For those
For those who don't know, "brick multiplexing" is a term some of us have been
using to mean running multiple brick "stacks" inside a single process with a
single protocol/server instance. Discussion from a month or so ago is here:
> If you think there are other dashboards that might be useful for us to
> create,
> let me know. They're constructed by generating the URLs, so they aren't
> difficult to make.
https://goo.gl/fIpN0J
>
> --
> nigelb
> ___
> Gluster-devel mailing list
Hello folks,
There's been a lot of talk of reviews and one of things that I think will
actually help is making sure it's clear which reviews really need review.
http://bit.ly/gluster-ready-to-review
This is a list of review requests which has passed tests, do not have merge
requests, and haven't
Hi Patrick,
Is it possible to test out whether the patch fixes your issue? There is
nothing like validation from user experiencing the problem first hand.
regards,
Raghavendra
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm not