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

[Zhang Huan]

> On 29 May 2017, at 11:16, 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 <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 <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.

We are currently on 3.8. Thus the performance number is based on 3.8.
If you need more details, please let me know.

> 
> * 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?
> 
> regards,
> Raghavendra
> 
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Shyam <srangana at redhat.com <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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> <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/ <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> <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>>
>     http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers>
>     <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-devel at gluster.org>
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Raghavendra G
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20170530/dd566ab9/attachment.html>