Re: [Gluster-devel] Cleaning up Jenkins

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:57:53AM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote: > Hello folks, > > As I was testing the Jenkins upgrade, I realized we store quite a lot of old > builds on Jenkins that doesn't seem to be useful. I'm going to start cleaning > them slowly in anticipation of moving Jenkins over to a

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

On 21 June 2017 at 10:26, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Nithya Balachandran > wrote: > >> >> On 20 June 2017 at 20:38, Aravinda wrote: >> >>> On 06/20/2017 06:02 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri

[Gluster-devel] Reducing the time to test patches which doesn't modify code

Today, any changes to glusterfs code base (other than 'doc/') triggers the regression runs when +1 Verified is voted. But we noticed that patches which are changes in 'extras/' or just updating README file, need not run regressions. So, Nigel proposed the idea of a .testignore file (like

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Nithya Balachandran wrote: > > On 20 June 2017 at 20:38, Aravinda wrote: > >> On 06/20/2017 06:02 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: >> >> Xavi, Aravinda and I had a discussion on #gluster-dev and we agreed to go >>

Re: [Gluster-devel] brick multiplexing and memory consumption

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > > > On 21-Jun-2017 9:45 AM, "Jeff Darcy" wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017, at 03:38 PM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > > Each process takes 795MB of virtual memory and resident memory is 10MB >

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

On 20 June 2017 at 20:38, Aravinda wrote: > On 06/20/2017 06:02 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > > Xavi, Aravinda and I had a discussion on #gluster-dev and we agreed to go > with the format Aravinda suggested for now and in future we wanted some > more changes for dht

Re: [Gluster-devel] brick multiplexing and memory consumption

On 21-Jun-2017 9:45 AM, "Jeff Darcy" wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2017, at 03:38 PM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: Each process takes 795MB of virtual memory and resident memory is 10MB each. Wow, that's even better than I thought. I was seeing about a 3x difference per brick (plus

Re: [Gluster-devel] brick multiplexing and memory consumption

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017, at 03:38 PM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > Each process takes 795MB of virtual memory and resident memory is > 10MB each. Wow, that's even better than I thought. I was seeing about a 3x difference per brick (plus the fixed cost of a brick process) during development. Your

Re: [Gluster-devel] brick multiplexing and memory consumption

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017, at 08:45 AM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > > Here is the data I gathered while debugging the considerable increase in > memory consumption by brick process when brick multiplexing is on. > > before

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

On 06/20/2017 06:02 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: Xavi, Aravinda and I had a discussion on #gluster-dev and we agreed to go with the format Aravinda suggested for now and in future we wanted some more changes for dht to detect which subvolume went down came back up, at that time we will

Re: [Gluster-devel] brick multiplexing and memory consumption

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017, at 08:45 AM, Raghavendra Talur wrote: > Here is the data I gathered while debugging the considerable increase > in memory consumption by brick process when brick multiplexing is on. > > before adding 14th brick to it: 3163 MB before > glusterfs_graph_init is

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 3.11.1: Scheduled for 20th of June

Hi, Release tagging has been postponed by a day to accommodate a fix for a regression that has been introduced between 3.11.0 and 3.11.1 (see [1] for details). As a result 3.11.1 will be tagged on the 21st June as of now (further delays will be notified to the lists appropriately).

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 3.11.1: Scheduled for 20th of June

On 06/20/2017 08:41 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Shyam > wrote: Hi, It's time to prepare the 3.11.1 release, which falls on the 20th of each month [4], and hence would be June-20th-2017 this

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 3.11.1: Scheduled for 20th of June

On 06/20/2017 06:13 AM, Amar Tumballi wrote: On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Shyam > wrote: 3.11.1 Release tagging is tomorrow (20th June, 2017). Here are some key things to do before we tag the release, 1) Regression failures:

[Gluster-devel] Coverity covscan for 2017-06-20-0a8dac38 (master branch)

GlusterFS Coverity covscan results are available from http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2017-06-20-0a8dac38 ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org

[Gluster-devel] brick multiplexing and memory consumption

Hi, Here is the data I gathered while debugging the considerable increase in memory consumption by brick process when brick multiplexing is on. before adding 14th brick to it: 3163 MB before glusterfs_graph_init is called 3171 (8 MB increase) io-stats init

Re: [Gluster-devel] New 'experimental' branch created for validating your ideas

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Hari Gowtham wrote: > What about the patches that are already posted against master and are > yet to be reviewed? > If its not merged in master, it is fine to merge to experimental. > Is it fine to post them here and continue with the work

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 3.11.1: Scheduled for 20th of June

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Shyam wrote: > Hi, > > It's time to prepare the 3.11.1 release, which falls on the 20th of > each month [4], and hence would be June-20th-2017 this time around. > > This mail is to call out the following, > > 1) Are there any pending *blocker*

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

Xavi, Aravinda and I had a discussion on #gluster-dev and we agreed to go with the format Aravinda suggested for now and in future we wanted some more changes for dht to detect which subvolume went down came back up, at that time we will revisit the solution suggested by Xavi. Susanth is doing

Re: [Gluster-devel] New 'experimental' branch created for validating your ideas

What about the patches that are already posted against master and are yet to be reviewed? Is it fine to post them here and continue with the work further here or wait for these patches to get in master and then come to the experimental branch. Asking this question because the patch is there for a

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

Hi Aravinda, On 20/06/17 12:42, Aravinda wrote: I think following format can be easily adopted by all components UUIDs of a subvolume are seperated by space and subvolumes are separated by comma For example, node1 and node2 are replica with U1 and U2 UUIDs respectively and node3 and node4 are

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

EC also sends all zeros if the node is down. Regards, Sunil kumar Acharya Senior Software Engineer Red Hat T: +91-8067935170 TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. On Tue,

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Aravinda wrote: > I think following format can be easily adopted by all components > > UUIDs of a subvolume are seperated by space and subvolumes are separated > by comma > > For example, node1 and node2 are replica with U1 and U2 UUIDs

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

I think following format can be easily adopted by all components UUIDs of a subvolume are seperated by space and subvolumes are separated by comma For example, node1 and node2 are replica with U1 and U2 UUIDs respectively and node3 and node4 are replica with U3 and U4 UUIDs respectively

[Gluster-devel] New 'experimental' branch created for validating your ideas

All, As proposed earlier [1], the 'experimental' branch is now created and active. Any submission to this branch is going to be accepted without too much detailed review, and the focus will be to make sure overall design is fine. I have put a deadline of a week max for reviewing and merging a

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 3.11.1: Scheduled for 20th of June

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Shyam wrote: > 3.11.1 Release tagging is tomorrow (20th June, 2017). > > Here are some key things to do before we tag the release, > > 1) Regression failures: (@pranith, @maintainers) > - Overall regression failures status on 3.11 since .0

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

Hi Xavi, On 06/20/2017 02:51 PM, Xavier Hernandez wrote: Hi Aravinda, On 20/06/17 11:05, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: Adding more people to get a consensus about this. On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Aravinda > wrote: regards

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

Hi Aravinda, On 20/06/17 11:05, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: Adding more people to get a consensus about this. On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Aravinda > wrote: regards Aravinda VK On 06/20/2017 01:26 PM, Xavier Hernandez

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

Adding more people to get a consensus about this. On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Aravinda wrote: > > regards > Aravinda VK > > > On 06/20/2017 01:26 PM, Xavier Hernandez wrote: > >> Hi Pranith, >> >> adding gluster-devel, Kotresh and Aravinda, >> >> On 20/06/17 09:45,

Re: [Gluster-devel] about deduplication feature

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Li, Dan wrote: > Hi, all > > we are using GlusterFS to construct our distribute filesystem. > Does gulsterFS has the deduplication feature on volumes? > Will you support it in the future? > hi Lidan, At the moment, GlusterFS doesn't

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

regards Aravinda VK On 06/20/2017 01:26 PM, Xavier Hernandez wrote: Hi Pranith, adding gluster-devel, Kotresh and Aravinda, On 20/06/17 09:45, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Xavier Hernandez > wrote:

Re: [Gluster-devel] geo-rep regression because of node-uuid change

Hi Pranith, adding gluster-devel, Kotresh and Aravinda, On 20/06/17 09:45, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Xavier Hernandez > wrote: On 20/06/17 09:31, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: The way

Re: [Gluster-devel] Self-heal on read-only volumes

Hi Karthik, thanks for the information. Xavi On 16/06/17 13:25, Karthik Subrahmanya wrote: Hi Xavi, In my opinion it can not be called as a bug, it is kind of an improvement to the read-only and WORM translators. The solution to this is to identify the internal FOPs and allowing them to

Re: [Gluster-devel] Performance experiments with io-stats translator

Apologies. Pressed 'send' even before I was done. On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Krutika Dhananjay wrote: > Some update on this topic: > > I ran fio again, this time with Raghavendra's epoll-rearm patch @ > https://review.gluster.org/17391 > > The IOPs increased to ~50K

Re: [Gluster-devel] Performance experiments with io-stats translator

Some update on this topic: I ran fio again, this time with Raghavendra's epoll-rearm patch @ https://review.gluster.org/17391 The IOPs increased to ~50K (from 38K). Avg READ latency as seen by the io-stats translator that sits above client-io-threads came down to 963us (from 1666us). ∆ (2,3) is