<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pkarampu@redhat.com" target="_blank">pkarampu@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Amar Tumballi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:atumball@redhat.com" target="_blank">atumball@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Pranith,<div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div> We found that compound fops is not giving better performance in replicate and I am thinking of removing that code. Sent the patch at <a href="https://review.gluster.org/19655" target="_blank">https://review.gluster.org/196<wbr>55</a><span class="m_-2781027570664653214m_8487940138243438230m_-6327896448455170920HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span class="m_-2781027570664653214m_8487940138243438230m_-6327896448455170920HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></font></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>If I understand it right, as of now AFR is the only component which uses Compound FOP. If it stops using that code, should we maintain the compound fop codebase at all in other places, like protocol, volgen (decompounder etc?)</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Infra was also supposed to be used by gfapi when compound fops is introduced. So I think it is not a bad idea to keep it until at least there is a decision about it. It will be similar to loading feature modules like quota even when quota is not used on the volume.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Got it, makes sense!</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Because, if AFR as a module decides compound fop is not useful, and other method is better, it is completely a decision of AFR maintainers. I don't see a concern there. </div><div><br></div><div>Only if it had an option and if people are using it, then warning them upfront about this change is better.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>By default it is off, so I am not expecting it to be in wide use. Even if they are using it, I don't see any dramatic improvement in their workload performance based on the numbers we got. This is going to be affective in 4.1 release.</div><div><br></div><div>I also added gluster-users, so that it is communicated to wider audience.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's nice! </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Amar</div><div><br></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>