[Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Backport for "Add back socket for polling of events immediately..."

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Raghavendra G <raghavendra at gluster.com>
wrote:

> Replying to all queries here:
>
> * Is it a bug or performance enhancement?
>   Its a performance enhancement. No functionality is broken if this patch
> is not taken in.
>
> * Are there performance numbers to validate the claim?
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606#c9
>
> * Are there any existing users who need this enhancement?
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358606#c27
>
>   Though not sure what branch Zhang Huan is on. @Zhang your inputs are
> needed here.
>
> * Do I think this patch _should_ go into any of the released branches?
>   Personally, I don't feel strongly either way. I am fine with this patch
> not making into any of released branches. But, I do think there are users
> who are affected with this (Especially EC/Disperse configurations). If they
> want to stick to the released branches, pulling into released branches will
> help them. @Pranith/Xavi, what are your opinions on this?
>

3.11.1 seems like a good idea IMO


>
> regards,
> Raghavendra
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Shyam <srangana at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/28/2017 09:24 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:25:42PM -0400, Shyam wrote:
>>>     > Or this one: https://review.gluster.org/15036 <
>>> https://review.gluster.org/15036>
>>>     >
>>>     > This is backported to 3.8/10 and 3.11 and considering the size and
>>> impact of
>>>     > the change, I wanted to be sure that we are going to accept this
>>> across all
>>>     > 3 releases?
>>>     >
>>>     > @Du, would like your thoughts on this.
>>>     >
>>>     > @niels, @kaushal, @talur, as release owners, could you weigh in as
>>> well
>>>     > please.
>>>     >
>>>     > I am thinking that we get this into 3.11.1 if there is agreement,
>>> and not in
>>>     > 3.11.0 as we are finalizing the release in 3 days, and this change
>>> looks
>>>     > big, to get in at this time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Given 3.11 is going to be a new release, I'd recommend to get this fix
>>> in (if we have time). https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17402/ is dependent
>>> on this one.
>>>
>>
>> It is not a fix Atin, it is a more fundamental change to request
>> processing, with 2 days to the release, you want me to merge this?
>>
>> Is there a *bug* that will surface without this change or is it a
>> performance enhancement?
>>
>>
>>>     >
>>>     > Further the change is actually an enhancement, and provides
>>> performance
>>>     > benefits, so it is valid as a change itself, but I feel it is too
>>> late to
>>>     > add to the current 3.11 release.
>>>
>>>     Indeed, and mostly we do not merge enhancements that are non-trivial
>>> to
>>>     stable branches. Each change that we backport introduces the chance
>>> on
>>>     regressions for users with their unknown (and possibly awkward)
>>>     workloads.
>>>
>>>     The patch itself looks ok, but it is difficult to predict how the
>>> change
>>>     affects current deployments. I prefer to be conservative and not have
>>>     this merged in 3.8, at least for now. Are there any statistics in how
>>>     performance is affected with this change? Having features like this
>>> only
>>>     in newer versions might also convince users to upgrade sooner, 3.8
>>> will
>>>     only be supported until 3.12 (or 4.0) gets released, which is
>>> approx. 3
>>>     months from now according to our schedule.
>>>
>>>     Niels
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     maintainers mailing list
>>>     maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
>>>     http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>>>     <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Raghavendra G
>



-- 
Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20170529/212daee3/attachment-0001.html>