I forgot to mention that with the first approach we need a separate tier
add brick parser. If we add these changes to the existing add-brick parser,
then the major changes are :
The word count for normal add-brick and tier-add-brick are totally different.
As the word count messes up, we need to
- Original Message -
> From: "Hari Gowtham"
> To: "Atin Mukherjee"
> Cc: "gluster-users" , "gluster-devel"
>
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 3:52:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] New
Hi,
Currently there are two suggested options for the syntax of add/remove brick:
1) gluster v tier add-brick [replica ] [tier-type ]
...
this syntax shows that its a add-brick operation on a tiered volume through a
argument
instead of distinguishing using the command. The separation of
Yes. this sounds better than having two separate commands for each tier.
If i don't get any other better solution will go with this one.
Thanks Atin.
- Original Message -
> From: "Atin Mukherjee"
> To: "Hari Gowtham"
> Cc: "gluster-devel"
Hari,
I think you misunderstood my statement, probably I shouldn't have mentioned
existing semantics. One eg here should clarify it, so this is what I
propose:
gluster v tier remove-brick tier-type hot start
Note that my request was to add an argument i.e tier-type here.
On Monday 3 October
Hi Atin,
Yes, we can do it. the existing semantics need some changes because of the
attach tier command (gluster volume tier attach ...) the
parsing has to be changed to accommodate the attach tier command. if used as I
mentioned then we can use the functions of attach tier generic for adding
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Hari Gowtham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The current add and remove brick commands aren't sufficient to support
> add/remove brick on tiered volumes.So the commands need minor changes
> like mentioning which tier we are doing the operation on. So in
Hi,
The current add and remove brick commands aren't sufficient to support
add/remove brick on tiered volumes.So the commands need minor changes
like mentioning which tier we are doing the operation on. So in order
to specify the tier on which we are performing the changes, I thought
of using