On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:42:49PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 28.03.2019 um 14:35 hat Stefano Garzarella geschrieben: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:59:55PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > Am 28.03.2019 um 11:52 hat Stefano Garzarella geschrieben: > > > > Several versions of GlusterFS (3.12? -> 6.0.1) fail when the > > > > transfer size is greater or equal to 1024 MiB, so we are > > > > limiting the transfer size to 512 MiB to avoid this rare issue. > > > > > > > > Buglink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691320 > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarz...@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > RFC: > > > > Should I add a parameter to allow the user to modify the max_transfer > > > > variable? > > > > > > Ideally, gluster would have provided a way to detect automatically > > > whether the bug is present. But since you suggest a user option, I'm > > > afraid they haven't? > > > > Unfortunately, all version that I tried have this bug, also the latest > > available, for this reason, I hard coded the limit in the gluster driver. > > I also think that this limit is not reached very often for standard > > operations. > > > > Maybe I should check the version of the library during the configuration, > > when they will fix the issue. > > > > What do you suggest? > > Oh, sorry, I should have actually looked at the BZ. I assumed it was > already fixed, but it's not. Then I think what you have is fine for now.
Good :) Should I resend without RFC or it can go as is through your block tree? > > Maybe you could suggest to the gluster people that they add some kind of > a feature flag or something somewhere together with the fix so we can > find out at runtime whether the installed gluster libs are fixed or not. Thanks! I'll forward this useful suggestion! Stefano
