Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-04-24 Thread Raghavendra G
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Raghavendra G wrote: > Summing up various discussions I had on this, > > 1. Current ping frame work should measure just the responsiveness of > network and rpc layer. This means poller threads shouldn't be winding the > individual fops

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-04-21 Thread Raghavendra G
Summing up various discussions I had on this, 1. Current ping frame work should measure just the responsiveness of network and rpc layer. This means poller threads shouldn't be winding the individual fops at all (as it might add delay in reading the ping requests). Instead, they can queue the

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-01-24 Thread Joe Julian
Yes, the earlier a fault is detected the better. On January 24, 2017 9:21:27 PM PST, Jeff Darcy wrote: >> If there are no responses to be received and no requests being >> sent to a brick, why would be a client be interested in the health of >> server/brick? > >The client

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-01-24 Thread Raghavendra G
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote: > >> > The more relevant question would be with TCP_KEEPALIVE and >> TCP_USER_TIMEOUT >> > on sockets, do we really need ping-pong framework in

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-01-23 Thread Raghavendra Talur
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote: >> >> > The more relevant question would be with TCP_KEEPALIVE and >> > TCP_USER_TIMEOUT >> > on sockets, do we really need ping-pong framework in

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-01-23 Thread Vijay Bellur
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote: > > The more relevant question would be with TCP_KEEPALIVE and > TCP_USER_TIMEOUT > > on sockets, do we really need ping-pong framework in Clients? We might > need > > that in transport/rdma setups, but my question is

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-01-19 Thread Jeff Darcy
> The more relevant question would be with TCP_KEEPALIVE and TCP_USER_TIMEOUT > on sockets, do we really need ping-pong framework in Clients? We might need > that in transport/rdma setups, but my question is concentrating on > transport/rdma. In other words would like to hear why do we need

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-01-19 Thread Raghavendra G
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Raghavendra G wrote: > The more relevant question would be with TCP_KEEPALIVE and > TCP_USER_TIMEOUT on sockets, do we really need ping-pong framework in > Clients? We might need that in transport/rdma setups, but my question is >

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-01-19 Thread Raghavendra G
The more relevant question would be with TCP_KEEPALIVE and TCP_USER_TIMEOUT on sockets, do we really need ping-pong framework in Clients? We might need that in transport/rdma setups, but my question is concentrating on transport/rdma. In other words would like to hear why do we need heart-beat

Re: [Gluster-devel] Priority based ping packet for 3.10

2017-01-19 Thread Raghavendra G
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Mohammed Rafi K C wrote: > Hi, > > The patch for priority based ping packets [1] are ready to review. As > Shyam mentioned in the comment on patch set 12, it doesn't solve the > problem with network conjunction nor the disk latency. Also it