[Gluster-devel] Question on merging zfs snapshot support into the mainline glusterfs

[B.K.Raghuram]

Thanks Rajesh,

I was looking at 3.6 only to check on some locking issues that we were
seeing. However, we would like to see this in master. Please feel free to
suggest modifications/modify the code as you see fit. Are there plans of
having a more general way of integrating other underlying snapshotting
mechanisms such as btrfs/lxd as well?

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Rajesh Joseph <rjoseph at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Kaushal M <kshlmster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:38 AM, B.K.Raghuram <bkrram at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We had hosted some changes to an old version of glusterfs (3.6.1) in
>> order
>> > to incorporate ZFS snapshot support for gluster snapshot commands. These
>> > have been done quite a while back and were not forward ported to newer
>> > versions of glusterfs. I have a couple of questions on this :
>> >
>> > 1. If one needs to incorporate these changes in their current or
>> modified
>> > form into the glusterfs master, what is the procedure to do so?
>> >
>> > 2. Since the above process may take longer to roll in, we would like to
>> get
>> > the changes into at least the latest version of the 3.6 branch. In
>> order to
>> > do this, I tried the following and needed some help :
>> >
>> > I tried to apply the two ZFS relates commits
>> > (https://github.com/fractalio/glusterfs/commits/release-3.6) to the
>> latest
>> > gluster code in the  guster-3.6 branch. I hit  one merge conflict per
>> > commit, both in xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/glusterd-snapshot.c. The
>> attached
>> > glusterd-snapshot.c_1 is the file with the merge conflicts after
>> applying
>> > the first commit and  glusterd-snapshot.c_2 is the one applying the
>> second
>> > commit. In order to process, I removed the HEAD changes in each of the
>> merge
>> > conflicts and proceeded just to see if anything else breaks but it went
>> > through. glusterd-snapshot.c_1_corrected and
>> glusterd-snapshot.c_2_corrected
>> > and the corresponding files after removing the merge conflicts.
>> >
>> > The question I had is, are the changes that I made to correct the merge
>> > conflicts safe? If not, could someone provide some suggestions on how to
>> > correct the two conflicts?
>> >
>> > The file cmd_log contains the history of commands that I went through
>> in the
>> > process..
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for sharing this Ram!
>>
>> Rajesh is the right person to answer your questions. As a GlusterD
>> maintainer, I'll go through this and see if I can answer as well.
>>
>>
> Overall the merge resolution seems fine, except few mistakes. e.g. in
> glusterd-snapshot.c_2 you missed
> to add "(unmount == _gf_true)" in the while loop in function
> "glusterd_do_lvm_snapshot_remove".
>
> In function "glusterd_lvm_snapshot_remove" wrong chunk of code added. The
> "if" condition should break here
> instead of continuing from here.
>
> Also I think it would be better to rebase the change against master
> instead of 3.6.
>
> Apart from this I am yet to review the complete change. I have taken an
> initial look and seems like
> we do need some amount of cleanup to the code before it can be taken in. I
> also need to see how well it will
> work the existing framework. I will go through it and provide a detailed
> comments later.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Rajesh
>
>
>
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Ram
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gluster-devel mailing list
>> > Gluster-devel at gluster.org
>> > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20160620/275b5623/attachment.html>