Free already allocated memory if short of memory
Signed-off-by: Li Wang
---
src/common/BackTrace.cc |6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/common/BackTrace.cc b/src/common/BackTrace.cc
index 6cace65..886ed6a 100644
--- a/src/common/BackTrace.cc
+++ b/src
Free allocated memory before return
Signed-off-by: Li Wang
---
src/os/chain_xattr.cc |4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/os/chain_xattr.cc b/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
index 62733e3..0859564 100644
--- a/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
+++ b/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
@@ -3
Free allocated memory before return
Signed-off-by: Li Wang
---
src/os/chain_xattr.cc |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/os/chain_xattr.cc b/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
index 62733e3..52ae8db 100644
--- a/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
+++ b/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
@@ -355,
Free allocated memory before return
Signed-off-by: Li Wang
---
src/os/chain_xattr.cc |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/os/chain_xattr.cc b/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
index 62733e3..d0a149c 100644
--- a/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
+++ b/src/os/chain_xattr.cc
@@ -401,
Close file before return
Signed-off-by: Li Wang
---
src/tools/rados/rados_sync.cc |1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/src/tools/rados/rados_sync.cc b/src/tools/rados/rados_sync.cc
index 03293d3..d2d6ab5 100644
--- a/src/tools/rados/rados_sync.cc
+++ b/src/tools/rados/rados_syn
Hi, I'm back from trip, sorry for thread pause, wanted to wrap this up.
I reread thead, but actually do not see what could be done from admin
side to tune LVM for better read performance on ceph(parts of my LVM
config included below). At least for already deployed LVM.
It seems there is no clear ag
Hi Li,
Applied both of these. THanks!
sage
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Li Wang wrote:
> Free allocated memory before return
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Wang
> ---
> src/os/chain_xattr.cc |2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/os/chain_xattr.cc b/src/os/chain_xat
This approach is basically what Kyua did for libc++ compatibility. It
looks good. The only things I don't like are the
CEPH_HASH_NAMESPACE_{START,END} macros. I'm personally not a fan of
macros that change language syntax. However, I can't come up with an
alternative that doesn't involve either
Salutations Ceph-ers,
As many of you have noticed, Inktank has taken the wraps off the
latest and greatest magic for enterprise customers. Wanted to share a
few thoughts from a community perspective on Ceph.com and answer any
questions/concerns folks might have.
http://ceph.com/community/new-ink
Hi Patrick,
I wish Inktank was able to base its strategy and income on Free Software. Like
RedHat does, for instance. In addition, as long as Inktank employs the majority
of Ceph developers, publishing Calamari as a proprietary software is a conflict
of interest. Should someone from the communi
I actually started a django app (no code pushed yet) for this purpose. I
guessed that Inktank might come out with a commercial offering and thought a
FOSS dashboard would be a good thing for the community too.
https://github.com/dontalton/kraken
I'd much rather contribute to a Inktank-backed da
On 10/29/2013 03:51 PM, Noah Watkins wrote:
Out of the box on OSX Mavericks libc++ [1] is being used as opposed to
libstdc++. One of the issues is that stuff from tr1 isn't available
(e.g. std::tr1::shared_ptr), as they have moved to std in c++11.
I'm looking for any feedback on this patch set,
The only thing that would be needed would be a good plugin/addon/agent to
graphite, collectd, snmpd or anything along these lines, giving the correct
metrics that identify the performance and status of the platform, well
documented.
Dashboards are up to the users themselfs (although a good exa
A release candidate for 0.72 emperor is ready! This candidate squashes
the last of the blocker bugs and includes all of the functionality that
will be present in the final 0.72. Looking back to dumpling, overall I
think we are also in much better shape than before: better overall
stability fr
There is a provsion in the startup scripts that will move your osd to the
correct position in the crush map on startup. By default, this sets the
host based on hostname and then pulls in any fields defined in 'osd crush
location' in ceph.conf.
This is useful but not sufficiently flexible for u
Sorry it took so long to get to this.
> after some more analysis and debugging, I found
> workarounds for my problems; I have added these workarounds
> to the last version of the patch for the poll problem by Sean;
> see the attachment to this posting.
>
> The shutdown() operations below are all
From: "Yan, Zheng"
We also need to wake up 'safe' waiters if error occurs or request
aborted. Otherwise sync(2)/fsync(2) may hang forever.
Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng
---
fs/ceph/mds_client.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ceph/mds_client.c b/fs/ceph/mds
Hi,
Pls is this a good setup for a production environment test of ceph? My focus is
on the SSD ... should it be partitioned(sdf1,2 ,3,4) and shared by the four
OSDs on a host? or is this a better configuration for the SSD to be just one
partition(sdf1) while all osd uses that one partition?
my s
18 matches
Mail list logo