This looks good to me and Sage liked the shape of it.
Reviewed-by: Greg Farnum
We do still need to update the mds protocol version, and I'd like to
switch over the messages that are already changed to the new encoding
system at the same time. I'm happy to do all that but will wait to
hear back ab
On 03/22/2013 06:03 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> Right. I'd like to somehow mark those reqid's so that we can tell when
> they come from a different incarnation of the MDS TableClient daemon.
> One way is via some piece of random data that will probably
> distinguish them, although if we have someth
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 02:31 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>> On 03/20/2013 02:15 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 07:09 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
>>>
On 03/21/2013 02:31 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> On 03/20/2013 02:15 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Yan, Zheng wrote:
On 03/20/2013 07:09 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
> Hmm, this is definitely narrowing the race (probably en
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 02:15 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> > > On 03/20/2013 07:09 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
> > > > Hmm, this is definitely narrowing the race (probably enough to never
> > > > hit it), but it's no
On 03/20/2013 02:15 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> On 03/20/2013 07:09 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
>>> Hmm, this is definitely narrowing the race (probably enough to never hit
>>> it), but it's not actually eliminating it (if the restart happens after 4
>>> billion re
On 03/20/2013 02:15 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> On 03/20/2013 07:09 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
>>> Hmm, this is definitely narrowing the race (probably enough to never hit
>>> it), but it's not actually eliminating it (if the restart happens after 4
>>> billion re
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 07:09 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
> > Hmm, this is definitely narrowing the race (probably enough to never hit
> > it), but it's not actually eliminating it (if the restart happens after 4
> > billion requests?). More importantly this kind of symp
On 03/20/2013 07:09 AM, Greg Farnum wrote:
> Hmm, this is definitely narrowing the race (probably enough to never hit it),
> but it's not actually eliminating it (if the restart happens after 4 billion
> requests…). More importantly this kind of symptom makes me worry that we
> might be papering
Hmm, this is definitely narrowing the race (probably enough to never hit it),
but it's not actually eliminating it (if the restart happens after 4 billion
requests…). More importantly this kind of symptom makes me worry that we might
be papering over more serious issues with colliding states in
From: "Yan, Zheng"
When a MDS becomes active, the table server re-sends 'agree' messages
for old prepared request. If the recoverd MDS starts a new table request
at the same time, The new request's ID can happen to be the same as old
prepared request's ID, because current table client assigns req
11 matches
Mail list logo
