On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:23 AM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: > Hi Rajesh, > > I'd thought about moving the zfs specific implementation to something like > > xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/plugins/zfs-specifs-stuffs for the inital go. > Could you let me know if this works or in sync with what you'd thought > about? > > Sriram >
Hi Sriram, Sorry, I was not able to send much time on this. I would prefer you move the code to xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/src/zfs-specifs-stuffs atinm and others do let us know if you have any objection to this. I captured our initial discussions on an etherpad ( https://public.pad.fsfe.org/p/gluster-volume-snapshots). I will update it further, meanwhile you can also capture more details in the etherpad if needed. Best Regards, Rajesh > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 03:52 PM, sri...@marirs.net.in wrote: > > Hi Rajesh, > > Sure thanks. > > Sriram > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 03:07 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: > > Hi Sriram, > The interface is not yet finalized. May be this is the right time to > re-ignite discussion on this. > I can create an etherpad which will explain the initial thoughts and > design ideas on the same. > Thanks & Regards, > Rajesh > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:57 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: > > > Hi Rajesh, > > Could you let us know the idea on how to go about this? > > Sriram > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016, at 03:18 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > > I believe Rajesh already has something here. May be he can post an outline > so that we can take it from there? > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:52 PM, <sri...@marirs.net.in> wrote: > > > Hi, > > I tried to go through the patch and find the reason behind the question > posted. But could'nt get any concrete details about the same. > > When going through the mail chain, there were mentions of generic snapshot > interface. I'd be interested in doing the changes if you guys could fill me > with some initial information. Thanks. > > Sriram > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016, at 01:59 PM, B.K.Raghuram wrote: > > Hi Rajesh, > I did not want to respond to the question that you'd posed on the zfs > snapshot code (about the volume backend backup) as I am not too familiar > with the code and the person who's coded it is not with us anymore. This > was done in bit of a hurry so it could be that it was just kept for later.. > > However, Sriram who is cc'd on this email, has been helping us by starting > to look at the gluster code and has expressed an interest in taking the > zfs code changes on. So he can probably dig out an answer to your question. > Sriram, Rajesh had a question on one of the zfs related patches - ( > https://github.com/fractalio/glusterfs/commit/39a163eca338b6da146f72f380237abd4c671db2#commitcomment-18109851 > ) > > Sriram is also interested in contributing to the process of creating a > generic snapshot interface in the gluster code which you and Pranith > mentioned above. If this is ok with you all, could you fill him in on what > your thoughts are on that and how he could get started? > Thanks! > -Ram > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Rajesh Joseph <rjos...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < > pkara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > hi, > Is there a plan to come up with an interface for snapshot > functionality? For example, in handling different types of sockets in > gluster all we need to do is to specify which interface we want to use and > ib,network-socket,unix-domain sockets all implement the interface. The code > doesn't have to assume anything about underlying socket type. Do you guys > think it is a worthwhile effort to separate out the logic of interface and > the code which uses snapshots? I see quite a few of if (strcmp ("zfs", > fstype)) code which can all be removed if we do this. Giving btrfs > snapshots in future will be a breeze as well, this way? All we need to do > is implementing snapshot interface using btrfs snapshot commands. I am not > talking about this patch per se. Just wanted to seek your inputs about > future plans for ease of maintaining the feature. > > > > As I said in my previous mail this is in plan and we will be doing it. But > due to other priorities this was not taken in yet. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Atin Mukherjee <amukh...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > On 06/21/2016 11:41 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote: > > What kind of locking issues you see? If you can provide some more > > information I can be able to help you. > > That's related to stale lock issues on GlusterD which are there in 3.6.1 > since the fixes landed in the branch post 3.6.1. I have already provided > the workaround/way to fix them [1] > > [1] > http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2016-June/thread.html#26995 > > ~Atin > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > > > > > -- > Pranith > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pranith > > > > > *_______________________________________________* > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@gluster.org > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
