Hi Yehuda,
I just wanted to ping this issue since it seems to have been forgotten (and is
still present in all versions of rest-bench I tried). The tracker issue was
marked as resolved, but the fix is only (AFAICT) in wip-3896 and there isn’t a
pull req to bring it to master or any release
Hi, all
Is any guideline that describes how to run the ceph unit test, and its
basic architecture?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe ceph-devel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Pushed wip-claim-3, which makes the changes you requested in IRC, plus adds a
unittest block.
Matt
- Sage Weil s...@newdream.net wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
Hi devs,
We've created a new branch wip-claim-2, and new pull request
Sage Weil writes:
[..]
Thoughts? Suggestions?
[..]
Suggestion:
radosgw should handle injectargs like other ceph clients do?
This is not a major annoyance, but it would be nice to have.
--
Abhishek
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Nicheal zay11...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, all
Is any guideline that describes how to run the ceph unit test, and its
basic architecture?
You can run them all by executing make check [-j N]. The executables
run as part of that are specified in the makefiles
Folks
I'm wondering if this is related to the question I posed a few days ago..
Can CEPH support 2 clients simultaneously accessing a single volume - for
example a database cluster - and honor read and write order of blocks across
the multiple clients?
Can you comment?
Regards,
Nigel Cook
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Cook, Nigel wrote:
Folks
I'm wondering if this is related to the question I posed a few days
ago..
Can CEPH support 2 clients simultaneously accessing a single volume -
for example a database cluster - and honor read and write order of
blocks across the multiple
For multiple clients accessing the same volume, same object, I guess the
clients need to do some synchronization between them to guarantee what it reads
is what it wrote. That is to say, if two clients, say A and B, A is doing
write, B is doing read. If B wants to read what A writes, it needs
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Wang, Zhiqiang zhiqiang.w...@intel.com wrote:
For multiple clients accessing the same volume, same object, I guess the
clients need to do some synchronization between them to guarantee what it
reads is what it wrote. That is to say, if two clients, say A and
What I understand is that if the read op specifies the RWORDERED flag, it is
processed in order. Otherwise, it may be out of order.
-Original Message-
From: ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:ceph-devel-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Haomai Wang
Sent: Wednesday, December 10,
On thinking of the following use cases and the rbd client..
The ordering scenario is that with client a and b, assuming a and b are
messaging between them, then a read posted by client b after client a has
successfully written will always read the client a content. Similarly, an
ordered write
In the 2nd scenario, what if the write by client B fails for some reason? Do we
also fail the following read by A or B? Or return the read with the client A
write content? If we return the read with client A write content, client A
still needs to communicate with B to know which version of the
Got this fixed. This is because of the following assertion in the function
'eval_repop' of the base tier code.
assert(entity_name_t::TYPE_OSD != m-get_connection()-peer_type);
When moving to proxy write, this assertion doesn't hold any more. After
removing it, the problem is fixed now.
13 matches
Mail list logo
