Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Maintainers 2.0 Proposal

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> We have been working on a proposal [1] to make the lifecycle management >> of Gluster maintainers more

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Maintainers 2.0 Proposal

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Amar Tumballi > wrote: > >> I don't want to take the discussions in another direction, but want >> clarity on few things: >> >> 1. Does maintainers

Re: [Gluster-devel] Why nodeid==1 need to be checked and dealt with specially in "fuse-bridge.c"?

Thanks for your kind reply. In fact, I am in the worst case: all 1 files in the mount point without using sub-directories. About 436 times fuse_getattr(lookup) need to be called, and 3ms a time(md_cache always miss). That is why fuse_getattr(lookup) takes so high cost. Could you tell

Re: [Gluster-devel] About inode table: client, server and inconsistency

Thank you very much. Is it possible to change something in server inode table during a fop from client? (I want to change the dht_layout of a directory when create a file in that directory, but I dont know how send the changed layout to servers) On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Amar Tumballi

Re: [Gluster-devel] About inode table: client, server and inconsistency

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Tahereh Fattahi wrote: > Hi > Is it correct that each brick has one inode table for itself and each > client has one inode table that stores anything that is stored in bricks > inode table? > > For a given inode, the contents on client

[Gluster-devel] What does xdata mean? "gfid-req"?

Hello, everyone, I am investigating the difference between stat and lookup operations in GlusterFs now. In the translator named "md_cache", stat operation will hit the cache generally, while lookup operation will miss the cache. The reason is that for lookup operation, md_cache will check

Re: [Gluster-devel] Maintainers 2.0 Proposal

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 01:20:31AM +0530, Amar Tumballi wrote: > I don't want to take the discussions in another direction, but want clarity > on few things: > > 1. Does maintainers means they are only reviewing/ merging patches? > 2. Should maintainers be responsible for answering ML / IRC

Re: [Gluster-devel] Maintainers 2.0 Proposal

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Amar Tumballi wrote: > I don't want to take the discussions in another direction, but want > clarity on few things: > > 1. Does maintainers means they are only reviewing/ merging patches? > 2. Should maintainers be responsible for answering

[Gluster-devel] [RFC] fop usage metrics across the filesystem

I have opened a github issues about this @ https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/137 Would recommend people to comment on the thread there so we can have a better conversation on the topic, and also keep track of whats happening. Regards, Amar -- Amar Tumballi (amarts)

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-infra] RPM build failures post-mortem

This is all sorted now. I've restarted Jenkins so it's English rather than French :) -- nigelb signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel