Re: [Gluster-devel] Gluster Build System not updating the Verified tag

[Karthik Subrahmanya]

- Original Message -
> From: "Nigel Babu" 
> To: "Karthik Subrahmanya" 
> Cc: "Niels de Vos" , "Jeff Darcy" , 
> "Gluster Devel" 
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 7:05:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Gluster Build System not updating the Verified tag
> 
> Please send an email to gluster-infra@ with review requests where you want
> the tag removed. We'll remove it for you.
Thank you for the response. I have sent a review request to gluster-infra.

Thanks,
Karthik
> 
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Karthik Subrahmanya 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Due to the issues with the regression machines the Gluster Build System
> > had posted
> > -1 to the verified tag of http://review.gluster.org/#/c/14619/ previously
> > this week.
> > Now all the regression tests and the build are successful, even then it is
> > not updating
> > the verified tag for the patch. It would be great if someone can help me
> > to resolve the
> > issue.
> > This is a blocker bug for Gluster 3.8 and need to be merged ASAP.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Karthik
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> nigelb
> 
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] State of the 4.0 World

[Joseph Fernandes]

- Original Message -
> From: "Dan Lambright" 
> To: "Gluster Devel" 
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 12:42:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] State of the 4.0 World
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jeff Darcy" 
> > To: "Gluster Devel" 
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 11:50:30 AM
> > Subject: [Gluster-devel] State of the 4.0 World
> > 
> > One of my recurring action items at community meetings is to report to
> > the list on how 4.0 is going.  So, here we go.
> > 
> > The executive summary is that 4.0 is on life support.  Many features
> > were proposed - some quite ambitious.  Many of those *never* had anyone
> > available to work on them.  Of those that did, many have either been
> > pulled forward into 3.8 (which is great) or lost what resources they had
> > (which is bad).  Downstream priorities have been the biggest cause of
> > those resource losses, though other factors such as attrition have also
> > played a part.  Net result is that, with the singular exception of
> > GlusterD 2.0, progress on 4.0 has all but stopped.  I'll provide more
> > details below.  Meanwhile, I'd like to issue a bit of a call to action
> > here, in two parts.
> > 
> >  * Many of the 4.0 sub-projects are still unstaffed.  Some of them are
> >in areas of code where our combined expertise is thin.  For example,
> >"glusterfsd" is where we need to make many brick- and
> >daemon-management changes for 4.0, but it has no specific maintainer
> >other than the project architects so nobody touches it.  Over the
> >past year it has been touched by fewer than two patches per month,
> >mostly side effects of patches which were primarily focused elsewhere
> >(less than 400 lines changed).  It can be challenging to dive into
> >such a "fallow" area, but it can also be an opportunity to make a big
> >difference, show off one's skill, and not have to worry much about
> >conflicts with other developers' changes.  Taking on projects like
> >these is how people get from contributing to leading (FWIW it's how I
> >did), so I encourage people to make the leap.
> > 
> >  * I've been told that some people have asked how 4.0 is going to affect
> >existing components for which they are responsible.  Please note that
> >only two components are being replaced - GlusterD and DHT.  The DHT2
> >changes are going to affect storage/posix a lot, so that *might* be
> >considered a third replacement.  JBR (formerly NSR) is *not* going to
> >replace AFR or EC any time soon.  In fact, I'm making significant
> >efforts to create common infrastructure that will also support
> >running AFR/EC on the server side, with many potential benefits to
> >them and their developers.  However, just about every other component
> >is going to be affected to some degree, if only to use the 4.0
> >CLI/volgen plugin interfaces instead of being hard-coded into their
> >current equivalents.  4.0 tests are also expected to be based on
> >Distaf rather than TAP (the .t infrastructure) so there's a lot of
> >catch-up to be done there.  In other cases there are deeper issues to
> >be resolved, and many of those discussions - e.g. regarding quota or
> >georep - have already been ongoing.  There will eventually be a
> >Gluster 4.0, even if it happens after I'm retired and looks nothing
> >like what I describe below.  If you're responsible for any part of
> >GlusterFS, you're also responsible for understanding how 4.0 will
> >affect that part.
> > 
> > With all that said, I'm going to give item-by-item details of where we
> > stand.  I'll use
> > 
> > http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Planning40
> > 
> > as a starting point, even though (as you'll see) in some ways it's out
> > of date.
> > 
> > * GlusterD 2 is still making good progress, under Atin's and Kaushal's
> >leadership.  There are designs for most of the important pieces, and
> >a significant amount of code which we should be able to demo soon.
> > 
> >  * DHT2 had been making good progress for a while, but has been stalled
> >recently as its lead developer (Shyam) has been unavailable.
> >Hopefully we'll get him back soon, and progress will accelerate
> >again.
> 
> DHT-2 will consolidate metadata on a server. This has the potential to help
> gluster's tiering implementation significantly, as it will not need to
> replicate directories on both the hot and cold tier. Chatting with Shyam,
> there appears to be three work items related to tiering and DHT-2.
> 
> 1.
> 
> An unmodified tiering translator "should" work with DHT-2. But to realize
> DHT-2's benefits, the tiering translator would need to be modified so
> metadata related FOPs are directed to only go to the tier on which the
> metadata resides.
> 
> 2.
> 
> "metadata" refers to 

Re: [Gluster-devel] State of the 4.0 World

[Dan Lambright]

- Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Darcy" 
> To: "Gluster Devel" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 11:50:30 AM
> Subject: [Gluster-devel] State of the 4.0 World
> 
> One of my recurring action items at community meetings is to report to
> the list on how 4.0 is going.  So, here we go.
> 
> The executive summary is that 4.0 is on life support.  Many features
> were proposed - some quite ambitious.  Many of those *never* had anyone
> available to work on them.  Of those that did, many have either been
> pulled forward into 3.8 (which is great) or lost what resources they had
> (which is bad).  Downstream priorities have been the biggest cause of
> those resource losses, though other factors such as attrition have also
> played a part.  Net result is that, with the singular exception of
> GlusterD 2.0, progress on 4.0 has all but stopped.  I'll provide more
> details below.  Meanwhile, I'd like to issue a bit of a call to action
> here, in two parts.
> 
>  * Many of the 4.0 sub-projects are still unstaffed.  Some of them are
>in areas of code where our combined expertise is thin.  For example,
>"glusterfsd" is where we need to make many brick- and
>daemon-management changes for 4.0, but it has no specific maintainer
>other than the project architects so nobody touches it.  Over the
>past year it has been touched by fewer than two patches per month,
>mostly side effects of patches which were primarily focused elsewhere
>(less than 400 lines changed).  It can be challenging to dive into
>such a "fallow" area, but it can also be an opportunity to make a big
>difference, show off one's skill, and not have to worry much about
>conflicts with other developers' changes.  Taking on projects like
>these is how people get from contributing to leading (FWIW it's how I
>did), so I encourage people to make the leap.
> 
>  * I've been told that some people have asked how 4.0 is going to affect
>existing components for which they are responsible.  Please note that
>only two components are being replaced - GlusterD and DHT.  The DHT2
>changes are going to affect storage/posix a lot, so that *might* be
>considered a third replacement.  JBR (formerly NSR) is *not* going to
>replace AFR or EC any time soon.  In fact, I'm making significant
>efforts to create common infrastructure that will also support
>running AFR/EC on the server side, with many potential benefits to
>them and their developers.  However, just about every other component
>is going to be affected to some degree, if only to use the 4.0
>CLI/volgen plugin interfaces instead of being hard-coded into their
>current equivalents.  4.0 tests are also expected to be based on
>Distaf rather than TAP (the .t infrastructure) so there's a lot of
>catch-up to be done there.  In other cases there are deeper issues to
>be resolved, and many of those discussions - e.g. regarding quota or
>georep - have already been ongoing.  There will eventually be a
>Gluster 4.0, even if it happens after I'm retired and looks nothing
>like what I describe below.  If you're responsible for any part of
>GlusterFS, you're also responsible for understanding how 4.0 will
>affect that part.
> 
> With all that said, I'm going to give item-by-item details of where we
> stand.  I'll use
> 
> http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Planning40
> 
> as a starting point, even though (as you'll see) in some ways it's out
> of date.
> 
> * GlusterD 2 is still making good progress, under Atin's and Kaushal's
>leadership.  There are designs for most of the important pieces, and
>a significant amount of code which we should be able to demo soon.
> 
>  * DHT2 had been making good progress for a while, but has been stalled
>recently as its lead developer (Shyam) has been unavailable.
>Hopefully we'll get him back soon, and progress will accelerate
>again.

DHT-2 will consolidate metadata on a server. This has the potential to help 
gluster's tiering implementation significantly, as it will not need to 
replicate directories on both the hot and cold tier. Chatting with Shyam, there 
appears to be three work items related to tiering and DHT-2.

1.

An unmodified tiering translator "should" work with DHT-2. But to realize 
DHT-2's benefits, the tiering translator would need to be modified so metadata 
related FOPs are directed to only go to the tier on which the metadata resides.

2.

"metadata" refers to directories, but (per my understanding), it could possibly 
include the file's inode as well. This is a choice- whether or not to include 
the inode in the metadata server is an technical investigation to undertake.

3.

Tier's database is currently SQLite, but it has been understood from day one 
that we may wish to move to a different database or algorithm. RocksDB is one 
candidate that is an 

[Gluster-devel] Gluster Build System not updating the Verified tag

[Karthik Subrahmanya]

Hi,

Due to the issues with the regression machines the Gluster Build System had 
posted
-1 to the verified tag of http://review.gluster.org/#/c/14619/ previously this 
week.
Now all the regression tests and the build are successful, even then it is not 
updating
the verified tag for the patch. It would be great if someone can help me to 
resolve the
issue.
This is a blocker bug for Gluster 3.8 and need to be merged ASAP.

Thanks & Regards,
Karthik
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release Management Process change - proposal

[Atin Mukherjee]

-Atin
Sent from one plus one
On 10-Jun-2016 6:09 PM, "Atin Mukherjee"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/06/2016 10:00 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Vijay Bellur 
wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Niels de Vos 
wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:55:58PM -0400, Vijay Bellur wrote:
>  On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Vijay Bellur 
wrote:
> > Since we do not have any objections to this proposal, let us do the
> > following for 3.7.12:
> >
> > 1. Treat June 1st as the cut-off for patch acceptance in
release-3.7.
> > 2. I will tag 3.7.12rc1 on June 2nd.
> 
> 
>  Gentle reminder - I will be tagging 3.7.12rc1 in about 12 hours from
>  now. Please merge patches needed for 3.7.12 by then. Post that,
>  patches would be pushed out to 3.7.13.
> >>>
> >>> I thought we didnt do the rc releases for the stable versions anymore?
> >>> What is the reason for this change?
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is for the convenience of maintainers to submit their feedback on
> >> the release content. A tag is more convenient than a commit ID to
> >> provide feedback and log bugs if necessary. Hence the change.
> >>
> >
> > I have tagged v3.7.12rc1.
> >
> > Maintainers - please use this tag to verify contents for your
> > components and provide your feedback this week.
> GlusterD sanity tests are executed. I've focused on cluster
> expansion/shrink, volume management commands like create. start, stop,
> delete along with expansion/shrink of a volume. volume set/get features
> are also tested. Little bit of basic testing is done for tiering, quota.
> Nothing abnormal found till now. So its a green from GlusterD team.

Along with that, I've also focused on testing the recent bug fixes done in
the glusterd code space.

>
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Vijay
> > ___
> > 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
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] netbsd smoke tests fail when code patches are backported to release-3.6

[Kremmyda, Olympia (Nokia - GR/Athens)]

Hi Niels, 

Thank you for your response. So is it possible to disable it from the review 
process of patches on release 3.6?
It seems that it is blocking issue for the reviews.
Here are all the requests for the release 
http://review.gluster.org/#/q/glusterfs+branch:release-3.6  
Please check that none of the latest ones have progress due to these smoke 
tests' failures.

Thank you,
Olia


-Original Message-
From: Niels de Vos [mailto:nde...@redhat.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 3:28 AM
To: Kremmyda, Olympia (Nokia - GR/Athens) 
Cc: Gluster Devel 
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] netbsd smoke tests fail when code patches are 
backported to release-3.6

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:39:29AM +, Kremmyda, Olympia (Nokia - GR/Athens) 
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Is there any update on this issue?

Not really. This failure is not critical for the 3.6 release, and the
maintainer normally ignores it. There is no requirement to have it pass
for the 3.6 version.

It is not an urgent issue for us to fix, no users or developers seem
very interested in the FreeBSD support. The problem does not happen with
newer versions, and that seems to make this failure acceptible.

HTH,
Niels


> 
> Thank you,
> Olia
> 
> From: gluster-devel-boun...@gluster.org 
> [mailto:gluster-devel-boun...@gluster.org] On Behalf Of Atin Mukherjee
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 7:11 PM
> To: Emmanuel Dreyfus 
> Cc: Gluster Devel 
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] netbsd smoke tests fail when code patches are 
> backported to release-3.6
> 
> 
> No, we didn't solve this problem yet. Niels had a patch up for review to fix 
> it but unfortunately it didn't. Kaushal also tried to reproduce it on a 
> netbsd machine, but nothing failed for him.
> 
> -Atin
> Sent from one plus one
> On 20-May-2016 9:25 PM, "Emmanuel Dreyfus" 
> > wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 05:43:07PM +0300, Angelos SAKELLAROPOULOS wrote:
> > May I ask why following review requests are not submitted to release-3.6 ?
> > It seems that they fail in netbsd, freebsd smoke tests which are not
> > related to code changes.
> 
> There are build errors. I am note sur how you could have inherited
> them from git checkout, since previous changes were supposed to
> pass smoke too. If you are sure the error are not yours, you
> can try to rebase.
> 
> --
> Emmanuel Dreyfus
> m...@netbsd.org
> ___
> 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

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

[Gluster-devel] Meaning of various log files

[jayakrishnan mm]

Hi ,

I see  some  overlapping information between
/var/log/glusterfs/glustershd.log  and

/var/log/glusterfs/mnt-gluster-.log. What is the difference
between these logs?

volume name is ec-vol




Best regards
JK
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel