[Gluster-Maintainers] [Gluster-devel] Please pause merging patches to 3.9 waiting for just one patch

Thu Nov 10 15:30:46 UTC 2016

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Manikandan Selvaganesh <
manikandancs333 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Enabling/disabling quota or removing limits are the ways in which
> quota.conf is regenerated to the later version. It works properly. And as
> Pranith said, both enabling/disabling takes a lot of time to crawl(though
> now much faster with enhanced quota enable/disable process) which we cannot
> suggest the users with a lot of quota configuration. Resetting the limit
> using limit-usage does not work properly. I have tested the same. The
> workaround is based on the user setup here. I mean the steps he exactly
> used in order matters here. The workaround is not so generic.
>

Thanks Manikandan for the reply :). I've not tested this, but went through
the code. If I am not wrong, function glusterd_store_quota_config  would
write a quota.conf which is compatible for versions >= 3.7. This function
is invoked by glusterd_quota_limit_usage unconditionally in success path.
What am I missing here?

@Pranith,

Since Manikandan says his tests didn't succeed always, probably we should
do any of the following
1. hold back the release till we successfully test limit-usage to rewrite
quota.conf (I can do this tomorrow)
2. get the patch in question for 3.9
3. If 1 is failing, debug why 1 is not working and fix that.

regards,
Raghavendra

> However, quota enable/disable would regenerate the file on any case.
>
> IMO, this bug is critical. I am not sure though how often users would hit
> this - Updating from 3.6 to latest versions. From 3.7 to latest, its fine,
> this has nothing to do with this patch.
>
> On Nov 10, 2016 8:03 PM, "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Raghavendra G <raghavendra at gluster.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
>>> pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
>>>>> pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to understand the criticality of these patches.
>>>>>> Raghavendra's patch is crucial because gfapi workloads(for samba and qemu)
>>>>>> are affected severely. I waited for Krutika's patch because VM usecase can
>>>>>> lead to disk corruption on replace-brick. If you could let us know the
>>>>>> criticality and we are in agreement that they are this severe, we can
>>>>>> definitely take them in. Otherwise next release is better IMO. Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are asking about how critical they are, then the first two are
>>>>> definitely not but third one is actually a critical one as if user upgrades
>>>>> from 3.6 to latest with quota enable, further peer probes get rejected and
>>>>> the only work around is to disable quota and re-enable it back.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me take Raghavendra G's input also here.
>>>>
>>>> Raghavendra, what do you think we should do? Merge it or live with it
>>>> till 3.9.1?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The commit says quota.conf is rewritten to compatible version during
>>> three operations:
>>> 1. enable/disable quota
>>>
>>
>> This will involve crawling the whole FS doesn't it?
>>
>> 2. limit usage
>>>
>>
>> This is a good way IMO. Could Sanoj/you confirm that this works once by
>> testing it.
>>
>>
>>> 3. remove quota limit
>>>
>>
>> I guess you added this for completeness. We can't really suggest this to
>> users as a work around.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I checked the code and it works as stated in commit msg. Probably we can
>>> list the above three operations as work around and take this patch in for
>>> 3.9.1
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On a different note, 3.9 head is not static and moving forward. So if
>>>>> you are really looking at only critical patches need to go in, that's not
>>>>> happening, just a word of caution!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pranith,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to see following patches getting in:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15722/
>>>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15714/
>>>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15792/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
>>>>>>> pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>       The only problem left was EC taking more time. This should
>>>>>>>> affect small files a lot more. Best way to solve it is using compound-fops.
>>>>>>>> So for now I think going ahead with the release is best.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are waiting for Raghavendra Talur's
>>>>>>>> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15778 before going ahead with the
>>>>>>>> release. If we missed any other crucial patch please let us know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will make the release as soon as this patch is merged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Pranith & Aravinda
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> maintainers mailing list
>>>>>>>> maintainers at gluster.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~ Atin (atinm)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Pranith
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ Atin (atinm)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pranith
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>>>> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
>>>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Raghavendra G
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pranith
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> maintainers mailing list
>> maintainers at gluster.org
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>

-- 
Raghavendra G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161110/90491cc3/attachment.html>