[Gluster-devel] GlusterFS-3.7.16 released

[Kaushal M]

Apologies for the very (I mean very) late announcement.

GlusterFS-3.7.16 has been released. The release-notes for this release
can be viewed at [1].

Storage-SIG packages have been built and are available from the
centos-gluster37-test repository right now, and will be available from
the release repository soon. Packages for other distros should be
available soon as well.

Thanks.
~kaushal

[1] 
https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/blob/release-3.7/doc/release-notes/3.7.16.md
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

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

[Vijay Bellur]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
 wrote:
> Il 20 giu 2016 8:08 AM, "B.K.Raghuram"  ha scritto:
>>
>> We had hosted some changes to an old version of glusterfs (3.6.1) in order
>> to incorporate ZFS snapshot support for gluster snapshot commands.
>
> Sorry for this OT but can someone explain me what's the meaning for these
> patches?
> Are you trying to merge ZFS snapshot support in gluster by replacing the
> gluster snapshot code, or to make gluster able to create ZFS snapshots when
> gluster is used with  ZFS bricks?
>


The intent is to make snapshotting in gluster more modular and add
support for the latter. Today our snapshotting is pretty much tied to
device mapper and cannot leverage snapshot capabilities present in
other underlying storage subsystems (zfs, btrfs etc.).

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

Re: [Gluster-devel] Check the possibility to incorporate DEBUG info permanently in build

[Vijay Bellur]

On 10/14/2016 04:30 AM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL wrote:

Hi Team,

As we are seeing many issues in gluster. And we are failing to address
most of the gluster issues due to lack of information for fault analysis.

And for the many issue unfortunately with the initial gluster logs we
get a very limited information which is not at all possible to find the
root cause/conclude the issue.
Every time enabling the LOG_LEVEL to DEBUG is not feasible and few of
the cases are very rarely seen.

Hence, I request you to check if there is a possibility  to incorporate
the debug information in build or check if its possible to introduce a
new debug level that can always be activated.

Please come back on this!


Abhishek - please provide specific instances of the nature of logs that 
could have helped you better. The query posted by you is very broad 
based and such broad queries seldom helps us in achieving the desired 
outcome.


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

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] 'Reviewd-by' tag for commits

[Michael Adam]

On 2016-10-16 at 02:04 +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> Which review-tool do you suggest Michael? Any other alternatives that are
> better? Don't tell me email :-)

Well, for no tool/vehicle is perfect, each sucks in some respect.
Quite frankly, of the few I have seen so far, email just sucks least,
and gerrit sucks most. That's just me, and I could elaborate, but
I won't bother you since I am obviously not one of the main
contributors to Gluster, and those should probably have the
strongest voice! :-)

Here is an interesting read on the topic:

https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/702177/d0f5decfbb3cb619/

And I am certainly not trying to convince you from
moving away from Gerrit right now - there is more
important stuff to do - but my advice is to refrain
from getting involved deeper with Gerrit by forking
it and customizing the code.

The git logs will survive, and with them, any tags in
the commit messages -- no matter which tool created them.

Cheers - Michael


> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Michael Adam  wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-10-14 at 11:44 +0200, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
> > > > I've said on this thread before, none of this is easy to do. It needs
> > us to
> > > > fork Gerrit to make our own changes. I would argue that depending on
> > the
> > > > data from the commit message is folly.
> > >
> > > Eventhough we all seem to agree that statistics based on commit messages
> > > is not correct,
> >
> > I think it is the best we can currently offer.
> > Let's be honest: Gerrit sucks. Big time!
> > If gerrit is no more, the git logs will survive.
> > Git is the common denominator that will last,
> > with all the tags that the commit messages carry.
> > So for now, I'd say the more tags we can fit into
> > git commit mesages the better... :-)
> >
> > > it looks like it is an incentive to get reviewing valued
> > > more. We need to promote the reviewing work somehow, and this is one way
> > > to do it.
> > >
> > > Forking Gerrit is surely not the right thing.
> >
> > Right. Avoid it if possible. Did I mention gerrit sucks? ;-)
> >
> > Cheers - Michael
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pranith


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