[Gluster-devel] https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/19778/

[Shyam Ranganathan]

On 1/8/19 8:33 AM, Nithya Balachandran wrote:
> Shyam, what is your take on this?
> An upstream user has tried it out and reported that it seems to fix the
> issue , however cpu utilization doubles.

We usually do not backport big fixes unless they are critical. My first
answer would be, can't this wait for rel-6 which is up next?

The change has gone through a good review overall, so from a review
thoroughness perspective it looks good.

The change has a test case to ensure that the limits are honored, so
again a plus.

Also, it is a switch, so in the worst case moving back to unlimited
should be possible with little adverse effects in case the fix has issues.

It hence, comes down to how confident are we that the change is not
disruptive to an existing branch? If we can answer this with resonable
confidence we can backport it and release it with the next 5.x update
release.

> 
> Regards,
> Nithya
> 
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 09:17, Amar Tumballi <atumball at redhat.com
> <mailto:atumball at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I feel its good to backport considering glusterfs-6.0 is another 2
>     months away.
> 
>     On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 8:19 AM Nithya Balachandran
>     <nbalacha at redhat.com <mailto:nbalacha at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>         Hi,
> 
>         Can we backport this to release-5 ? We have several reports of
>         high memory usage in fuse clients from users and this is likely
>         to help.
> 
>         Regards,
>         Nithya
>         _______________________________________________
>         Gluster-devel mailing list
>         Gluster-devel at gluster.org <mailto:Gluster-devel at gluster.org>
>         https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Amar Tumballi (amarts)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>