Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-12 Thread sriram 
Hi Avra, 



Thank you. 



Sriram 





On Thu, Jan 12, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:

> Works fine for us Sriram. Friday 2-3 pm.

> 

>  Regards,

>  Avra

> 

>  On 01/12/2017 11:54 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

>> Hi Avra, 

>> 

>> Sorry for the late reply, could we have the meeting tomorrow? 2-3 pm?
>> 

>> Sriram

>> 

>> 

>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote:

>>> Hi, 

>>> 

>>> We can have a discussion tomorrow i.e 12th January from 3pm to 4 pm.
>>> Does that time work for you?
>>> 

>>> Meeting Link : https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/

>>> 

>>> Regards,

>>> Avra

>>> 

>>> On 01/10/2017 09:35 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

 Hello Rajesh, Avra, 

 

 Could we have a discussion on the below? This week sometime? 

 

 Sriram

 

 

 On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 04:56 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

> Sure, will setup it from next week onward.

> -Rajesh

> 

> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM,  wrote:

>> 

>> Hi Rajesh, 

>> 

>> Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide.
>> I'll continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for
>> review. We'll take it from there, is that ok with you?
>> 

>> Sriram 

>> 

>> 

>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

>>> 

>>> 

>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:

 

 Hi Avra, 

 

 Is the below request ok with you? 

 

 Sriram

 

 

 On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> Hi Avra/Rajesh, 

> 

> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be
> working on the change we'd initiated sometime back for
> pluggable FS specific snapshot implementation. We'd be moving
> our gluster deployements to "master" (stable) once this
> feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled
> release next year, I'd be happy if some of the work done here
> is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well.
> 

> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call,
> could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature?
>>> 

>>> Hi Sriram,

>>> I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail.

>>> I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take
>>> this to conclusion.
>>> Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine?

>>> Best Regards,

>>> Rajesh

>>> 

>>>  

> 

> 

> Sriram

> 

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote:
>> 

>> 

>> more  details »[1]

>> Re:  [Gluster-devel]  Question on merging zfs snapshot
>> support into the mainline glusterfs
>> Hi Sriram,

>> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss
>> snapshot plugabbility. Thanks
>> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2]



>> Regards, Avra



>> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > Hi
>> Avra, > > Could you help on the below request?  May I abandon
>> the previous submitted patches, and could we consider the
>> latest one? > > Sriram > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57
>> PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> Thanks for
>> the reply, >> >> But the problem I see here is the previous
>> patch set sent would'nt compile individually. So, I merged
>> the changes into a single patch , which i'd posted today. Is
>> it ok to drop all the previous posted patches and consider
>> from the new one? Please suggest. >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On
>> Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>> Hi
>> Sriram, >>> >>> I have already provided comments on the new
>> patch. It seems this new patch while addressing merge
>> cloflicts, has undone some previous patches. I suggest you
>> send this patch on top of the previous patchset
>> (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3]) instead of
>> creating a new one. This will allow you to view the diff
>> between the new version and the previous version, and will
>> give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the
>> patch or got added as part of merge conflict. >>> >>>
>> Regards, >>> Avra >>> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM,
>> sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:  Hi Avra,   I've
>> update the patch according to the comments below. And created
>> a single patch which does the initial modularization. Fixed
>> the tab->space issue as well. I've raised a new review
>> request for the same bug ID here: 
>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[4]   Added,
>>

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-11 Thread Avra Sengupta 

Works fine for us Sriram. Friday 2-3 pm.

Regards,
Avra

On 01/12/2017 11:54 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

Hi Avra,

Sorry for the late reply, could we have the meeting tomorrow? 2-3 pm?

Sriram


On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote:

Hi,

We can have a discussion tomorrow i.e 12th January from 3pm to 4 pm. 
Does that time work for you?


Meeting Link : https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/ 



Regards,
Avra

On 01/10/2017 09:35 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in 
 wrote:

Hello Rajesh, Avra,

Could we have a discussion on the below? This week sometime?

Sriram


On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 04:56 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

Sure, will setup it from next week onward.
-Rajesh

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, > wrote:



Hi Rajesh,

Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could
decide. I'll continue to rework the initial patch set and post
it for review. We'll take it from there, is that ok with you?

Sriram


On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:



On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM, > wrote:


Hi Avra,

Is the below request ok with you?

Sriram


On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in
 wrote:

Hi Avra/Rajesh,

In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be
working on the change we'd initiated sometime back for
pluggable FS specific snapshot implementation. We'd be
moving our gluster deployements to "master" (stable) once
this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 release is
scheduled release next year, I'd be happy if some of the
work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well.

Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the
call, could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature?



Hi Sriram,
I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail.
I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's
take this to conclusion.
Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine?
Best Regards,
Rajesh





Sriram

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com
 wrote:



more details »




  Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs
  snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs

Hi Sriram,

Could you please join the hangout, so that we can
discuss snapshot plugabbility. Thanks

Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/




Regards, Avra

On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in
 wrote: > Hi Avra, > >
Could you help on the below request? May I abandon the
previous submitted patches, and could we consider the
latest one? > > Sriram > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at
12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in
 wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >>
Thanks for the reply, >> >> But the problem I see here
is the previous patch set sent would'nt compile
individually. So, I merged the changes into a single
patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the
previous posted patches and consider from the new one?
Please suggest. >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15,
2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>> Hi Sriram,
>>> >>> I have already provided comments on the new
patch. It seems this new patch while addressing merge
cloflicts, has undone some previous patches. I suggest
you send this patch on top of the previous
patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1

)
instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to
view the diff between the new version and the previous
version, and will give u an idea if the diff is
something that you added in the patch or got added as
part of merge conflict. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Avra >>>
>>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in
 wrote:  Hi Avra, 
 I've update the patch according to the comments
below. And created a single patch which does the

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-11 Thread sriram 
Hi Avra, 



Sorry for the late reply, could we have the meeting tomorrow? 2-3 pm? 



Sriram





On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote:

> Hi, 

> 

>  We can have a discussion tomorrow i.e 12th January from 3pm to 4 pm.
>  Does that time work for you?
> 

>  Meeting Link : https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[1]

> 

>  Regards,

>  Avra

> 

>  On 01/10/2017 09:35 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

>> Hello Rajesh, Avra, 

>> 

>> Could we have a discussion on the below? This week sometime? 

>> 

>> Sriram

>> 

>> 

>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 04:56 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

>>> Sure, will setup it from next week onward.

>>> -Rajesh

>>> 

>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM,  wrote:

 

 Hi Rajesh, 

 

 Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide.
 I'll continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for
 review. We'll take it from there, is that ok with you?
 

 Sriram 

 

 

 On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

> 

> 

> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:

>> 

>> Hi Avra, 

>> 

>> Is the below request ok with you? 

>> 

>> Sriram

>> 

>> 

>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

>>> Hi Avra/Rajesh, 

>>> 

>>> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working
>>> on the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS
>>> specific snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster
>>> deployements to "master" (stable) once this feature goes in.
>>> Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled release next year, I'd
>>> be happy if some of the work done here is re-usable to
>>> glusterd2.0 as well.
>>> 

>>> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call,
>>> could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature?
> 

> Hi Sriram,

> I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail.

> I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take
> this to conclusion.
> Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine?

> Best Regards,

> Rajesh

> 

>  

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Sriram

>>> 

>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote:

 

 

 more details »[2]

 Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support
 into the mainline glusterfs
 Hi Sriram,

 Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss
 snapshot plugabbility. Thanks
 Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[3]



 Regards, Avra



 On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > Hi Avra,
 > > Could you help on the below request?  May I abandon the
 previous submitted patches, and could we consider the latest
 one? > > Sriram > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM,
 sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: >> Hi Avra, >> >> Thanks for the
 reply, >> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch
 set sent would'nt compile individually. So, I merged the
 changes into a single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok
 to drop all the previous posted patches and consider from the
 new one? Please suggest. >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15,
 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>> Hi Sriram, >>> >>>
 I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems
 this new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone
 some previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of
 the previous patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[4])
 instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the
 diff between the new version and the previous version, and will
 give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the
 patch or got added as part of merge conflict. >>> >>> Regards,
 >>> Avra >>> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in
 wrote:  Hi Avra,   I've update the patch according
 to the comments below. And created a single patch which does
 the initial modularization. Fixed the tab->space issue as well.
 I've raised a new review request for the same bug ID here: 
 http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[5]   Added, Rajesh
 and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to do anything
 else.   Could you have a look and let me know? 
  (Sorry for the delay in creating this)   Sriram
   On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta
 wrote: > Hi Sriram, > > The point I was trying to
 make is, that we want that each patch should compile by itself,
 and pass regression. So for that to happen, we need

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-10 Thread Avra Sengupta 

Hi,

We can have a discussion tomorrow i.e 12th January from 3pm to 4 pm. 
Does that time work for you?


Meeting Link : https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/ 



Regards,
Avra

On 01/10/2017 09:35 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

Hello Rajesh, Avra,

Could we have a discussion on the below? This week sometime?

Sriram


On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 04:56 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

Sure, will setup it from next week onward.
-Rajesh

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM, > wrote:



Hi Rajesh,

Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide.
I'll continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for
review. We'll take it from there, is that ok with you?

Sriram


On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:



On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM, > wrote:


Hi Avra,

Is the below request ok with you?

Sriram


On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in
 wrote:

Hi Avra/Rajesh,

In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be
working on the change we'd initiated sometime back for
pluggable FS specific snapshot implementation. We'd be
moving our gluster deployements to "master" (stable) once
this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 release is
scheduled release next year, I'd be happy if some of the
work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well.

Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the
call, could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature?



Hi Sriram,
I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail.
I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take
this to conclusion.
Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine?
Best Regards,
Rajesh





Sriram

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com
 wrote:



more details »




  Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot
  support into the mainline glusterfs

Hi Sriram,

Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss
snapshot plugabbility. Thanks

Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/




Regards, Avra

On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in
 wrote: > Hi Avra, > > Could
you help on the below request? May I abandon the previous
submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one? >
> Sriram > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM,
sri...@marirs.net.in  wrote:
>> Hi Avra, >> >> Thanks for the reply, >> >> But the
problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt
compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a
single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop
all the previous posted patches and consider from the new
one? Please suggest. >> >> Sriram >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 15,
2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote: >>> Hi Sriram, >>>
>>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It
seems this new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has
undone some previous patches. I suggest you send this
patch on top of the previous
patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1

)
instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view
the diff between the new version and the previous version,
and will give u an idea if the diff is something that you
added in the patch or got added as part of merge conflict.
>>> >>> Regards, >>> Avra >>> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM,
sri...@marirs.net.in  wrote:
 Hi Avra,   I've update the patch according to
the comments below. And created a single patch which does
the initial modularization. Fixed the tab->space issue as
well. I've raised a new review request for the same bug ID
here:  http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-10 Thread sriram 
Hello Rajesh, Avra, 



Could we have a discussion on the below? This week sometime? 



Sriram





On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 04:56 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

> Sure, will setup it from next week onward.

> -Rajesh

> 

> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM,  wrote:

>> __

>> Hi Rajesh, 

>> 

>> Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide. I'll
>> continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for review.
>> We'll take it from there, is that ok with you?
>> 

>> Sriram 

>> 

>> 

>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

>>> 

>>> 

>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:

 __

 Hi Avra, 

 

 Is the below request ok with you? 

 

 Sriram

 

 

 On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

> Hi Avra/Rajesh, 

> 

> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working
> on the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS
> specific snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster
> deployements to "master" (stable) once this feature goes in.
> Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled release next year, I'd be
> happy if some of the work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as
> well.
> 

> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call,
> could we've a weekly meeting for the same feature?
>>> 

>>> Hi Sriram,

>>> I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail.

>>> I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take this
>>> to conclusion.
>>> Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine?

>>> Best Regards,

>>> Rajesh

>>> 

>>>  

> 

> 

> Sriram

> 

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> more details »[1]

>> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into
>> the mainline glusterfs
>> Hi Sriram,

>> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss
>> snapshot plugabbility. Thanks
>> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2]



>> Regards,
>> Avra


>> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>> > Hi Avra,
>> >
>> > Could you help on the below request?  May I abandon the
>> > previous submitted patches, and could we consider the latest
>> > one?
>> >
>> > Sriram
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>> >> Hi Avra,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the reply,
>> >>
>> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent
>> >> would'nt compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a
>> >> single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all
>> >> the previous posted patches and consider from the new one?
>> >> Please suggest.
>> >>
>> >> Sriram
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
>> >>> Hi Sriram,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems
>> >>> this new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone
>> >>> some previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top
>> >>> of the previous patchset
>> >>> (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3]) instead of
>> >>> creating a new one. This will allow you to view the diff
>> >>> between the new version and the previous version, and will
>> >>> give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the
>> >>> patch or got added as part of merge conflict.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards, Avra
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>>  Hi Avra,
>> 
>>  I've update the patch according to the comments below. And
>>  created a single patch which does the initial
>>  modularization. Fixed the tab->space issue as well. I've
>>  raised a new review request for the same bug ID here:
>>  http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[4]
>> 
>>  Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I
>>  need to do anything else.
>> 
>>  Could you have a look and let me know?
>> 
>>  (Sorry for the delay in creating this)
>> 
>>  Sriram
>> 
>>  On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
>> > Hi Sriram,
>> >
>> > The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each
>> > patch should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for
>> > that to happen, we need to consolidate these patches(the
>> > first three) into one patch, and have the necessary make
>> > file changes into that patch too.
>> >
>> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/[5]
>> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/[6]
>> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/[7]
>>

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-02 Thread Rajesh Joseph 
Sure, will setup it from next week onward.

-Rajesh

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:38 PM,  wrote:

> Hi Rajesh,
>
> Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide. I'll
> continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for review. We'll take
> it from there, is that ok with you?
>
> Sriram
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:
>
>
> Hi Avra,
>
> Is the below request ok with you?
>
> Sriram
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>
> Hi Avra/Rajesh,
>
> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on the
> change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific snapshot
> implementation. We'd be moving our gluster deployements to "master"
> (stable) once this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled
> release next year, I'd be happy if some of the work done here is re-usable
> to glusterd2.0 as well.
>
> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, could we've
> a weekly meeting for the same feature?
>
>
> Hi Sriram,
> I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail.
> I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take this to
> conclusion.
> Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine?
> Best Regards,
> Rajesh
>
>
>
>
>
> Sriram
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote:
>
>
>
> more details »
> 
> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the
> mainline glusterfs
> Hi Sriram,
>
> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss snapshot
> plugabbility. Thanks
>
> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/
> 
>
> Regards,
> Avra
>
> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> > Hi Avra,
> >
> > Could you help on the below request? May I abandon the previous
> submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one?
> >
> > Sriram
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> >> Hi Avra,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the reply,
> >>
> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt
> compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a single patch , which
> i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the previous posted patches and
> consider from the new one? Please suggest.
> >>
> >> Sriram
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> >>> Hi Sriram,
> >>>
> >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems this new
> patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone some previous patches. I
> suggest you send this patch on top of the previous patchset(
> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1
> )
> instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the diff between
> the new version and the previous version, and will give u an idea if the
> diff is something that you added in the patch or got added as part of merge
> conflict.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Avra
> >>>
> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>  Hi Avra,
> 
>  I've update the patch according to the comments below. And created a
> single patch which does the initial modularization. Fixed the tab->space
> issue as well. I've raised a new review request for the same bug ID here:
>  http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/
> 
> 
>  Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to do
> anything else.
> 
>  Could you have a look and let me know?
> 
>  (Sorry for the delay in creating this)
> 
>  Sriram
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> > Hi Sriram,
> >
> > The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch
> should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to happen, we
> need to consolidate these patches(the first three) into one patch, and have
> the necessary make file changes into that patch too.
> >
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/
> 
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/
> 
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/
>

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-02 Thread sriram 
Hi Rajesh, 



Right now bi-weekly should be ok, with progress we could decide. I'll
continue to rework the initial patch set and post it for review. We'll
take it from there, is that ok with you?


Sriram 





On Mon, Jan 2, 2017, at 03:32 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:

> 

> 

> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:

>> __

>> Hi Avra, 

>> 

>> Is the below request ok with you? 

>> 

>> Sriram

>> 

>> 

>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

>>> Hi Avra/Rajesh, 

>>> 

>>> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on
>>> the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific
>>> snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster deployements to
>>> "master" (stable) once this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0
>>> release is scheduled release next year, I'd be happy if some of the
>>> work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well.
>>> 

>>> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, could
>>> we've a weekly meeting for the same feature?
> 

> Hi Sriram,

> I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail.

> I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take this
> to conclusion.
> Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine?

> Best Regards,

> Rajesh

> 

>  

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Sriram

>>> 

>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote:

 

 

 more details »[1]

 Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into
 the mainline glusterfs
 Hi Sriram,

 Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss snapshot
 plugabbility. Thanks
 Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2]



 Regards,
 Avra


 On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
 > Hi Avra,
 >
 > Could you help on the below request?  May I abandon the previous
 > submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one?
 >
 > Sriram
 >
 >
 > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
 >> Hi Avra,
 >>
 >> Thanks for the reply,
 >>
 >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent
 >> would'nt compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a
 >> single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the
 >> previous posted patches and consider from the new one? Please
 >> suggest.
 >>
 >> Sriram
 >>
 >>
 >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
 >>> Hi Sriram,
 >>>
 >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems
 >>> this new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone
 >>> some previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of
 >>> the previous patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3])
 >>> instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the
 >>> diff between the new version and the previous version, and will
 >>> give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the
 >>> patch or got added as part of merge conflict.
 >>>
 >>> Regards, Avra
 >>>
 >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
  Hi Avra,
 
  I've update the patch according to the comments below. And
  created a single patch which does the initial modularization.
  Fixed the tab->space issue as well. I've raised a new review
  request for the same bug ID here:
  http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[4]
 
  Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need
  to do anything else.
 
  Could you have a look and let me know?
 
  (Sorry for the delay in creating this)
 
  Sriram
 
  On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
 > Hi Sriram,
 >
 > The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each
 > patch should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for
 > that to happen, we need to consolidate these patches(the
 > first three) into one patch, and have the necessary make file
 > changes into that patch too.
 >
 > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/[5]
 > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/[6]
 > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/[7]
 >
 > That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes
 > of having the current code moved into separate files, and it
 > should get compiled on it's own, and should pass regression.
 > Also, we use spaces, and not tabs in the code. So we will
 > need to get those changed too. Thanks.
 >
 > Regards, Avra
 >
 > On 10/12/2016 10:46 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
 >> Hi Avra,
 >>
 >> Could you let me know on the below request?
 >>
 >> Sriram

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-02 Thread Rajesh Joseph 
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 3:19 PM,  wrote:

> Hi Avra,
>
> Is the below request ok with you?
>
> Sriram
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>
> Hi Avra/Rajesh,
>
> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on the
> change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific snapshot
> implementation. We'd be moving our gluster deployements to "master"
> (stable) once this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 release is scheduled
> release next year, I'd be happy if some of the work done here is re-usable
> to glusterd2.0 as well.
>
> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, could we've
> a weekly meeting for the same feature?
>
>
Hi Sriram,

I was on vacation so could not reply to your mail.

I am OK with having a regular sync-up on this issue. Let's take this to
conclusion.
Do we need a weekly meeting or bi-weekly meeting is fine?

Best Regards,
Rajesh



>
> Sriram
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote:
>
>
>
> more details »
> 
> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the
> mainline glusterfs
> Hi Sriram,
>
> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss snapshot
> plugabbility. Thanks
>
> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/
> 
>
> Regards,
> Avra
>
> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> > Hi Avra,
> >
> > Could you help on the below request? May I abandon the previous
> submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one?
> >
> > Sriram
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> >> Hi Avra,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the reply,
> >>
> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt
> compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a single patch , which
> i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the previous posted patches and
> consider from the new one? Please suggest.
> >>
> >> Sriram
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> >>> Hi Sriram,
> >>>
> >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems this new
> patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone some previous patches. I
> suggest you send this patch on top of the previous patchset(http://review.
> gluster.org/#/c/15554/1
> )
> instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the diff between
> the new version and the previous version, and will give u an idea if the
> diff is something that you added in the patch or got added as part of merge
> conflict.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Avra
> >>>
> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>  Hi Avra,
> 
>  I've update the patch according to the comments below. And created a
> single patch which does the initial modularization. Fixed the tab->space
> issue as well. I've raised a new review request for the same bug ID here:
>  http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/
> 
> 
>  Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to do
> anything else.
> 
>  Could you have a look and let me know?
> 
>  (Sorry for the delay in creating this)
> 
>  Sriram
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> > Hi Sriram,
> >
> > The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch
> should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to happen, we
> need to consolidate these patches(the first three) into one patch, and have
> the necessary make file changes into that patch too.
> >
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/
> 
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/
> 
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/
> 
> >
> > That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes of
> having the current code moved into separate files, and it should get
> compiled on it's own, and should pass regression. Also, we use spaces, and
> not tabs in the code. So we will need to get those changed too. Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Avra

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2017-01-02 Thread sriram 
Hi Avra, 



Is the below request ok with you? 



Sriram





On Wed, Dec 21, 2016, at 10:00 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:

> Hi Avra/Rajesh, 

> 

> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on
> the change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific
> snapshot implementation. We'd be moving our gluster deployements to
> "master" (stable) once this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0
> release is scheduled release next year, I'd be happy if some of the
> work done here is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well.
> 

> Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, could
> we've a weekly meeting for the same feature?
> 

> Sriram

> 

> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> more details »[1]

>> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the
>> mainline glusterfs
>> Hi Sriram,

>> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss snapshot
>> plugabbility. Thanks
>> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2]



>> Regards,
>> Avra


>> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>> > Hi Avra,
>> >
>> > Could you help on the below request?  May I abandon the previous
>> > submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one?
>> >
>> > Sriram
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>> >> Hi Avra,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the reply,
>> >>
>> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt
>> >> compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a single patch
>> >> , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the previous posted
>> >> patches and consider from the new one? Please suggest.
>> >>
>> >> Sriram
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
>> >>> Hi Sriram,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems this
>> >>> new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone some
>> >>> previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of the
>> >>> previous patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3])
>> >>> instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the
>> >>> diff between the new version and the previous version, and will
>> >>> give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the
>> >>> patch or got added as part of merge conflict.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards, Avra
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>>  Hi Avra,
>> 
>>  I've update the patch according to the comments below. And
>>  created a single patch which does the initial modularization.
>>  Fixed the tab->space issue as well. I've raised a new review
>>  request for the same bug ID here:
>>  http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[4]
>> 
>>  Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to
>>  do anything else.
>> 
>>  Could you have a look and let me know?
>> 
>>  (Sorry for the delay in creating this)
>> 
>>  Sriram
>> 
>>  On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
>> > Hi Sriram,
>> >
>> > The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch
>> > should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to
>> > happen, we need to consolidate these patches(the first three)
>> > into one patch, and have the necessary make file changes into
>> > that patch too.
>> >
>> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/[5]
>> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/[6]
>> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/[7]
>> >
>> > That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes
>> > of having the current code moved into separate files, and it
>> > should get compiled on it's own, and should pass regression.
>> > Also, we use spaces, and not tabs in the code. So we will need
>> > to get those changed too. Thanks.
>> >
>> > Regards, Avra
>> >
>> > On 10/12/2016 10:46 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>> >> Hi Avra,
>> >>
>> >> Could you let me know on the below request?
>> >>
>> >> Sriram
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 11:16 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>> >>> Hi Avra,
>> >>>
>> >>> I checked the comment, the series of patches, (There are nine
>> >>> patches) for which I've posted for a review below. They've
>> >>> all the necessary makefiles to compile.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would you want me to consolidate all'em and post them as a
>> >>> single patch? (I thought that would be a little confusing,
>> >>> since it'd changes with different intentions).
>> >>>
>> >>> Sriram
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 03:54 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
>>  Hi Sriram,
>> 
>>  I posted a comment into the first patch. It doesn't compile
>>  by itself. We need to update the respective makefiles to be
>>  able to compile it. Then we can

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2016-12-21 Thread Emmanuel Dreyfus 
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:00:17AM +0530, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on the
> change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific snapshot
> implementation

Let me know how I can contribute the FFS implementation for NetBSD.
In case it helps for designing the API, here is the relevant man page:
http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?fss+.NONE+NetBSD-7.0.2

Basically, you find iterate on /dev/fss[0-9], open it cand call ioctl
FSSIOCGET to checkif it is already in use. Once you have an unused 
one, ioctl FSSIOCSET to cast the snapshot. It requires a backing store
file, which may be created by mktemp() and unlinked immediatly.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] Invitation: Re: Question on merging zfs snapshot supp... @ Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:30pm - 3:30pm (IST) (sri...@marirs.net.in)

2016-12-20 Thread sriram 
Hi Avra/Rajesh, 



In continuation to the discussion we'd yesterday, I'd be working on the
change we'd initiated sometime back for pluggable FS specific snapshot
implementation. We'd be moving our gluster deployements to "master"
(stable) once this feature goes in. Since, glusterd2.0 release is
scheduled release next year, I'd be happy if some of the work done here
is re-usable to glusterd2.0 as well.


Let me know, if this is ok. Like Rajesh mentioned in the call, could
we've a weekly meeting for the same feature?


Sriram



On Mon, Dec 19, 2016, at 03:55 PM, aseng...@redhat.com wrote:

> 

> 

> more details »[1]

> Re: [Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the
> mainline glusterfs
> Hi Sriram,

> Could you please join the hangout, so that we can discuss snapshot
> plugabbility. Thanks
> Meeting Link: https://bluejeans.com/u/asengupt/[2]



> Regards,
> Avra


> On 12/19/2016 01:38 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> > Hi Avra,
> >
> > Could you help on the below request?  May I abandon the previous
> > submitted patches, and could we consider the latest one?
> >
> > Sriram
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:57 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> >> Hi Avra,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the reply,
> >>
> >> But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt
> >> compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a single patch
> >> , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the previous posted
> >> patches and consider from the new one? Please suggest.
> >>
> >> Sriram
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> >>> Hi Sriram,
> >>>
> >>> I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems this
> >>> new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone some
> >>> previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of the
> >>> previous patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1[3])
> >>> instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the
> >>> diff between the new version and the previous version, and will
> >>> give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the
> >>> patch or got added as part of merge conflict.
> >>>
> >>> Regards, Avra
> >>>
> >>> On 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
>  Hi Avra,
> 
>  I've update the patch according to the comments below. And
>  created a single patch which does the initial modularization.
>  Fixed the tab->space issue as well. I've raised a new review
>  request for the same bug ID here:
>  http://review.gluster.org/#/c/16138/[4]
> 
>  Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to
>  do anything else.
> 
>  Could you have a look and let me know?
> 
>  (Sorry for the delay in creating this)
> 
>  Sriram
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> > Hi Sriram,
> >
> > The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch
> > should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to
> > happen, we need to consolidate these patches(the first three)
> > into one patch, and have the necessary make file changes into
> > that patch too.
> >
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/[5]
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/1/[6]
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15556/[7]
> >
> > That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes of
> > having the current code moved into separate files, and it should
> > get compiled on it's own, and should pass regression. Also, we
> > use spaces, and not tabs in the code. So we will need to get
> > those changed too. Thanks.
> >
> > Regards, Avra
> >
> > On 10/12/2016 10:46 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> >> Hi Avra,
> >>
> >> Could you let me know on the below request?
> >>
> >> Sriram
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016, at 11:16 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> >>> Hi Avra,
> >>>
> >>> I checked the comment, the series of patches, (There are nine
> >>> patches) for which I've posted for a review below. They've all
> >>> the necessary makefiles to compile.
> >>>
> >>> Would you want me to consolidate all'em and post them as a
> >>> single patch? (I thought that would be a little confusing,
> >>> since it'd changes with different intentions).
> >>>
> >>> Sriram
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 03:54 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
>  Hi Sriram,
> 
>  I posted a comment into the first patch. It doesn't compile
>  by itself. We need to update the respective makefiles to be
>  able to compile it. Then we can introduce the tabular
>  structure in the same patch to have the framework set for the
>  zfs snapshots. Thanks.
> 
>  Regards, Avra
> 
>  On 09/30/2016 10:24 AM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote:
> > Hi Avra,
> >