[Gluster-devel] Introducing a new option to gluster peer command.
Joe Julian
joe at julianfamily.org
Fri Apr 4 00:30:05 UTC 2014
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 loss.
On 4/3/2014 4:57 PM, Paul Cuzner wrote:
>
> I like the idea of making the CLI more semantically correct. ie to
> drop a node from a cluster we use the term detach, so to add a node it
> should be attach.
>
> Would a peer probe then be more of a diagnostic command ?
> - ie return whether 24007 is open, perform initial handshake -
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana" <nsathyan at redhat.com>
> *To: *"James" <purpleidea at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *gluster-devel at 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
> <nsathyan at redhat.com> 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 sense to bring in gluster peer attach command to add
> the server to trusted pool. The peer probe command will only prove the
> server mentioned and tells if it is reachable. It can also be enhanced to do
> some diagnostics such as probing specific ports.
>
> Do I understand correctly:
>
> gluster peer attach would attach the probing server into the pool it
> is probing, correct?
> If so, and if it is already a member of a pool, could you join two
> different pools together?
> I don't know what the gluster internals implications are, but as long
> as I understand this correctly, then I think it would benefit the
> management side of glusterfs.
>
> It would certainly make peering more decentralized, as long as double
> peering or running a simultaneous peer attach and peer probe don't
> cause issues. This last point is very important :)
>
>
> Cheers,
> James
>
> The "gluster peer attach" should work the same way as existing
> "gluster peer probe". The new "gluster peer probe" shall only
> probe the peer and not add it to the trusted pool. When we give
> /peer detach/ option, I think it would be natural to expect a
> /peer attach/ command.
>
> Thanks
> Naga
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20140403/a6211726/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gluster-devel
mailing list