On 06/04/2014, at 9:31 PM, Paul Cuzner wrote:
> Yup - I guess it depends upon what we want it to return.
>
> If the process is a simple "are you alive"... 'ping' works.
>
> However, if we want more info returned - maybe detect is more
> self-explanatory.
"peer check"?
And +1 to doing it in 4.
haha yeah that sounds funny. okay, so...
- "peer detect" sounds good and then
- we keep "peer probe" as backwards compatibles.
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
To: "Paul Cuzner" , "Jay Vyas"
> Cc: "Gluster Devel"
> Sent: Monday, 7 April, 2014 8:04:07 AM
> Subject: RE: [Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster peer
> command.
> Well, "peer ping" since we are giving way to imagina
Well, "peer ping" since we are giving way to imagination... :)
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:42:03 -0400
From: pcuz...@redhat.com
To: jayunit...@gmail.com
CC: gluster-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster peer command.
Sounds like a great idea.
e - determine
>
> > > gluster version and report back to the admin?
>
> > >
>
> > > This would mean that you could make intelligent decisions about bringing
>
> > > nodes into the cluster from the automation platform.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > ____________
On 04/04/2014 06:00 AM, Joe Julian wrote:
Targeted for 4.0? Scripts are already written with the expectation that
the probe command works a certain way and changes to the cli will break
that compatibility. Major version changes, at least, do come with a
certain level of backward compatibility los
gt;
> > This would mean that you could make intelligent decisions about bringing
> > nodes into the cluster from the automation platform.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana"
> > To: "J
ntelligent decisions about bringing
> nodes into the cluster from the automation platform.
>
>
>
>
> From: "Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana"
> To: "James"
> Cc: gluster-devel@nongnu.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2014
;
*To: *"James"
*Cc: *gluster-devel@nongnu.org
*Sent: *Tuesday, 1 April, 2014 6:01:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster
peercommand.
On 04/01/2014 08:23 AM, James wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Nagap
el@nongnu.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April, 2014 6:01:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster peer
> command.
> On 04/01/2014 08:23 AM, James wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana
> > wrote:
>
> > &g
On 04/01/2014 07:59 AM, Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana wrote:
Hi All,
In the current design, /gluster peer probe/ does the job of both
probing the server and adding it to trusted pool. Once the server is
added to trusted pool, it can be detached using/peer detach /command/. /
/
/
Wondering if it m
On 04/01/2014 08:23 AM, James wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana
wrote:
In the current design, gluster peer probe does the job of both probing the
server and adding it to trusted pool. Once the server is added to trusted
pool, it can be detached usingpeer detach
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana
wrote:
> In the current design, gluster peer probe does the job of both probing the
> server and adding it to trusted pool. Once the server is added to trusted
> pool, it can be detached usingpeer detach command.
>
> Wondering if it makes
Hi All,
In the current design, gluster peer probe does the job of both probing the
server and adding it to trusted pool. Once the server is added to trusted pool,
it can be detached usingpeer detach command.
Wondering if it makes sense to bring in gluster peer attach command to add the
server
14 matches
Mail list logo
